Advancing mechanisms of implementation to accelerate sustainable evidence-based practice integration: protocol for generating a research agenda

A research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms

BACKGROUND

Implementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms-the processes responsible for change-is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.

METHOD

Building on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: "What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?" The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.

RESULTS

From this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

This research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.

Understanding and Navigating the Unique Barriers Rural Primary Care Settings Face when Implementing Collaborative Care for Mental Health

Rural primary care (RPC) clinics may face unique barriers to implementing the Collaborative Care Model (CoCM). We used mixed methods to explore RPC staff and practice facilitator (PF) perspectives on CoCM implementation. PFs reported on barriers and facilitators experienced after each monthly meeting with clinics (n = 459 surveys across 23 clinics). Data were analyzed descriptively and informed qualitative interviews with a purposive sample (n = 11) of clinic staff and PFs. Interviews were analyzed using Rapid Assessment Process and triangulated with quantitative data. The most prominent barriers experienced were: (1) the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) limited availability of site staff to participate in implementation activities, and (3) hiring of new CoCM staff. Qualitative data further characterized the ways these barriers uniquely influenced RPC settings and promising implementation strategies. RPC settings face unique challenges to CoCM implementation, but several promising implementation strategies - when tailored to RPC contexts - may help.

Changing hearts and minds: theorizing how, when, and under what conditions three social influence implementation strategies work

Background

Opinion leadership, educational outreach visiting, and innovation championing are commonly used strategies to address barriers to implementing innovations and evidence-based practices in healthcare settings. Despite voluminous research, ambiguities persist in how these strategies work and under what conditions they work well, work poorly, or work at all. The current paper develops middle-range theories to address this gap.

Methods

Conceptual articles, systematic reviews, and empirical studies informed the development of causal pathway diagrams (CPDs). CPDs are visualization tools for depicting and theorizing about the causal process through which strategies operate, including the mechanisms they activate, the barriers they address, and the proximal and distal outcomes they produce. CPDs also clarify the contextual conditions (i.e., preconditions and moderators) that influence whether, and to what extent, the strategy's causal process unfolds successfully. Expert panels of implementation scientists and health professionals rated the plausibility of these preliminary CPDs and offered comments and suggestions on them.

Findings

Theoretically, opinion leadership addresses potential adopters' uncertainty about likely consequences of innovation use (determinant) by promoting positive attitude formation about the innovation (mechanism), which results in an adoption decision (proximal outcome), which leads to innovation use (intermediate outcome). As this causal process repeats, penetration, or spread of innovation use, occurs (distal outcome). Educational outreach visiting addresses knowledge barriers, attitudinal barriers, and behavioral barriers (determinants) by promoting critical thinking and reflection about evidence and practice (mechanism), which results in behavioral intention (proximal outcome), behavior change (intermediate outcome), and fidelity, or guideline adherence (distal outcome). Innovation championing addresses organizational inertia, indifference, and resistance (determinants) by promoting buy-in to the vision, fostering a positive implementation climate, and increasing collective efficacy (mechanisms), which leads to participation in implementation activities (proximal outcome), initial use of the innovation with increasing skill (intermediate outcome) and, ultimately, greater penetration and fidelity (distal outcomes). Experts found the preliminary CPDs plausible or highly plausible and suggested additional mechanisms, moderators, and preconditions, which were used to amend the initial CPD.

Discussion

The middle-range theories depicted in the CPDs furnish testable propositions for implementation research and offer guidance for selecting, designing, and evaluating these social influence implementation strategies in both research studies and practice settings.

Utility of the Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation-Systems Level (LOCI-SL) strategy for a statewide substance use treatment implementation effort

INTRODUCTION

Multi-level and cross-context implementation strategies are needed to support health systems, healthcare delivery organizations, and providers to adopt evidence-based practice (EBP) for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. However, misalignment between state oversight agencies and healthcare organizations about which services to prioritize and which outcomes are reasonable to expect can hinder implementation success and widespread access to high-quality care. This study investigated the utility of the Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation-System Level (LOCI-SL) strategy for supporting statewide EBP implementation for SUD treatment.

METHODS

Nine community mental health centers (CMHCs) contracted by a state agency participated in a combined motivational-enhancement therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy (MET/CBT) implementation effort. Five of the CMHCs also received the LOCI-SL strategy to obtain ongoing implementation support. We conducted 21 individual interviews and three small group interviews with 30 participants across CMHCs and state health agencies to investigate the utility of LOCI-SL in supporting their EBP implementation efforts. Deductive thematic analysis was guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework.

RESULTS

Five themes described CMHCs' LOCI-SL and broader contextual experiences implementing EBPs: (1) LOCI-SL supported executives in Preparation phase activities that holistically considered organizational needs and capacity to implement and sustain EBPs; (2) LOCI-SL facilitated trust and communication processes across Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment phases to improve EBP uptake; (3) LOCI-SL increased CMHCs' use of implementation climate strengthening activities throughout the Implementation phase; (4) state contracts did not emphasize quality and thus were not sufficient bridging factors to enforce EBP fidelity during Implementation; and, (5) limited funding and low Medicaid reimbursement rates hindered EBP use throughout the Implementation and Sustainment phases.

CONCLUSIONS

LOCI-SL was viewed as a favorable and useful implementation strategy for supporting statewide adoption of EBPs. However, outer context barriers, including limited financial investments in the treatment system, impeded implementation and sustainment efforts. While previous research suggests that contracts are viable alignment-promoting bridging factors, this study demonstrates the importance of articulating implementation outcome expectations to aid state-contracted organizations in achieving EBP implementation success. This study also highlights the need for multi-level implementation strategies to effectively align implementation expectations between outer- and inner-context entities.

A qualitative study identifying implementation strategies using the i-PARIHS framework to increase access to pre-exposure prophylaxis at federally qualified health centers in Mississippi

BACKGROUND

Mississippi (MS) experiences disproportionally high rates of new HIV infections and limited availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) are poised to increase access to PrEP. However, little is known about the implementation strategies needed to successfully integrate PrEP services into FQHCs in MS.

PURPOSE

The study had two objectives: identify barriers and facilitators to PrEP use and to develop tailored implementation strategies for FQHCs.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 staff and 17 PrEP-eligible patients in MS FQHCs between April 2021 and March 2022. The interview was guided by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework which covered PrEP facilitators and barriers. Interviews were coded according to the i-PARIHS domains of context, innovation, and recipients, followed by thematic analysis of these codes. Identified implementation strategies were presented to 9 FQHC staff for feedback.

RESULTS

Data suggested that PrEP use at FQHCs is influenced by patient and clinic staff knowledge with higher levels of knowledge reflecting more PrEP use. Perceived side effects are the most significant barrier to PrEP use for patients, but participants also identified several other barriers including low HIV risk perception and untrained providers. Despite these barriers, patients also expressed a strong motivation to protect themselves, their partners, and their communities from HIV. Implementation strategies included education and provider training which were perceived as acceptable and appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Though patients are motivated to increase protection against HIV, multiple barriers threaten uptake of PrEP within FQHCs in MS. Educating patients and providers, as well as training providers, are promising implementation strategies to overcome these barriers.

A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022

BACKGROUND

Studies of implementation strategies range in rigor, design, and evaluated outcomes, presenting interpretation challenges for practitioners and researchers. This systematic review aimed to describe the body of research evidence testing implementation strategies across diverse settings and domains, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy to classify strategies and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to classify outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies examining implementation strategies from 2010-2022 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235592). We searched databases using terms "implementation strategy", "intervention", "bundle", "support", and their variants. We also solicited study recommendations from implementation science experts and mined existing systematic reviews. We included studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of at least one implementation strategy to improve health or health care using an outcome that could be mapped to the five evaluation dimensions of RE-AIM. Only studies meeting prespecified methodologic standards were included. We described the characteristics of studies and frequency of implementation strategy use across study arms. We also examined common strategy pairings and cooccurrence with significant outcomes.

FINDINGS

Our search resulted in 16,605 studies; 129 met inclusion criteria. Studies tested an average of 6.73 strategies (0-20 range). The most assessed outcomes were Effectiveness (n=82; 64%) and Implementation (n=73; 56%). The implementation strategies most frequently occurring in the experimental arm were Distribute Educational Materials (n=99), Conduct Educational Meetings (n=96), Audit and Provide Feedback (n=76), and External Facilitation (n=59). These strategies were often used in combination. Nineteen implementation strategies were frequently tested and associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, many strategies were not tested sufficiently to draw conclusions.

CONCLUSION

This review of 129 methodologically rigorous studies built upon prior implementation science data syntheses to identify implementation strategies that had been experimentally tested and summarized their impact on outcomes across diverse outcomes and clinical settings. We present recommendations for improving future similar efforts.

Scaling up a brief alcohol intervention to prevent HIV infection in Vietnam: a cluster randomized, implementation trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) often address normative behaviors. If a behavior is also common among clinicians, they may be skeptical about the necessity or effectiveness of an EBI. Alternatively, clinicians' attitudes and behaviors may be misaligned, or they may lack the knowledge and self-efficacy to deliver the EBI. Several EBIs address unhealthy alcohol use, a common and often culturally acceptable behavior. But unhealthy alcohol use may be particularly harmful to people with HIV (PWH). Here, we present an implementation trial using an experiential implementation strategy to address clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Clinicians receive the experiential intervention before they begin delivering an evidence-based brief alcohol intervention (BAI) to PWH with unhealthy alcohol use.

METHODS

Design: In this hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized controlled trial, ART clinics (n = 30) will be randomized 1:1 to facilitation, a flexible strategy to address implementation barriers, or facilitation plus the experiential brief alcohol intervention (EBAI). In the EBAI arm, clinicians, irrespective of their alcohol use, will be offered the BAI as experiential learning. EBAI will address clinicians' alcohol-related attitudes and behaviors and increase their knowledge and confidence to deliver the BAI.

PARTICIPANTS

ART clinic staff will be enrolled and assessed at pre-BAI training, post-BAI training, 3, 12, and 24 months. All PWH at the ART clinics who screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use will be offered the BAI. A subset of PWH (n = 810) will be enrolled and assessed at baseline, 3, and 12 months.

OUTCOMES

We will compare implementation outcomes (acceptability, fidelity, penetration, costs, and sustainability) and effectiveness outcomes (viral suppression and alcohol use) between the two arms. We will assess the impact of site-level characteristics on scaling-up the BAI. We will also evaluate how experiencing the BAI affected clinical staff's alcohol use and clinic-level alcohol expectations in the EBAI arm.

DISCUSSION

This trial contributes to implementation science by testing a novel strategy to implement a behavior change intervention in a setting in which clinicians themselves may engage in the behavior. Experiential learning may be useful to address normative and difficult to change lifestyle behaviors that contribute to chronic diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT06358885 (04/10/2024), https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06358885 .

How do oilcloth sessions work? A realist evaluation approach to exploring ripple effects in an implementation strategy

PURPOSE

To explore the mechanisms of the implementation strategy, "oilcloth sessions" and understand and explain the ripple effects of oilcloth sessions as a strategy to implement a new emergency department.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A qualitative design was used whereby data were collected using field notes from an ethnographic study of the oilcloth sessions and follow-up semi-structured interviews with staff, managers and key employees who participated in the oilcloth sessions. The data analysis was inspired by the realist evaluation approach of generative causality proposed by Pawson and Tilley.

FINDINGS

The primary ripple effect was that the oilcloth sessions were used for different purposes than the proposed program theory, including being used as: (1) a stage, (2) a battlefield, (3) a space for imagination and (4) a strategic management tool influencing the implementation outcomes. The results bring essential knowledge that may help to explain why and how a well-defined implementation strategy has unplanned outcomes.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Unintended outcomes of implementation strategies are an underexplored issue. This study may help implementation researchers rethink the activities required to reduce unintended negative outcomes or explore potential unplanned outcomes and, in this way, hinder or enhance outcomes, effectiveness and sustainability. Future studies within implementation research should incorporate attention to unintended outcomes to fully understand the impact of implementation strategies.

Implementation Science and Practice-Oriented Research: Convergence and Complementarity

Implementation science is the scientific study of methods to promote the uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices in routine care, with the goal of improving the quality and effectiveness of health services (Bauer et al., 2015). In addition to this common goal, practice-oriented psychotherapy research (and researchers) and implementation science (and scientists) share a common focus on the people and the places where treatment happens. Thus, there exists strong potential for combining these two approaches. In this article, we provide a primer on implementation science for psychotherapy researchers and highlight important areas and examples of convergence and complementarity between implementation science and practice-oriented psychotherapy research. Specifically, we (a) define and describe the core features of implementation science; (b) discuss similarities and areas of complementarity between implementation science and practice-oriented psychotherapy research; (c) discuss a case example that exemplifies the integration of implementation science and practice-oriented research; and (d) propose directions for future research and collaborations that leverage both implementation science and practice-oriented research.

Sustaining the collaborative chronic care model in outpatient mental health: a matrixed multiple case study

BACKGROUND

Sustaining evidence-based practices (EBPs) is crucial to ensuring care quality and addressing health disparities. Approaches to identifying factors related to sustainability are critically needed. One such approach is Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS), which identifies factors and their combinations that influence implementation. We applied MMCS to identify factors related to the sustainability of the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM) at nine Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient mental health clinics, 3-4 years after implementation support had concluded.

METHODS

We conducted a directed content analysis of 30 provider interviews, using 6 CCM elements and 4 Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) domains as codes. Based on CCM code summaries, we designated each site as high/medium/low sustainability. We used i-PARIHS code summaries to identify relevant factors for each site, the extent of their presence, and the type of influence they had on sustainability (enabling/neutral/hindering/unclear). We organized these data into a sortable matrix and assessed sustainability-related cross-site trends.

RESULTS

CCM sustainability status was distributed among the sites, with three sites each being high, medium, and low. Twenty-five factors were identified from the i-PARIHS code summaries, of which 3 exhibited strong trends by sustainability status (relevant i-PARIHS domain in square brackets): "Collaborativeness/Teamwork [Recipients]," "Staff/Leadership turnover [Recipients]," and "Having a consistent/strong internal facilitator [Facilitation]" during and after active implementation. At most high-sustainability sites only, (i) "Having a knowledgeable/helpful external facilitator [Facilitation]" was variably present and enabled sustainability when present, while (ii) "Clarity about what CCM comprises [Innovation]," "Interdisciplinary coordination [Recipients]," and "Adequate clinic space for CCM team members [Context]" were somewhat or less present with mixed influences on sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

MMCS revealed that CCM sustainability in VA outpatient mental health clinics may be related most strongly to provider collaboration, knowledge retention during staff/leadership transitions, and availability of skilled internal facilitators. These findings have informed a subsequent CCM implementation trial that prospectively examines whether enhancing the above-mentioned factors within implementation facilitation improves sustainability. MMCS is a systematic approach to multi-site examination that can be used to investigate sustainability-related factors applicable to other EBPs and across multiple contexts.

Instrumental variables for implementation science: exploring context-dependent causal pathways between implementation strategies and evidence-based interventions

BACKGROUND

The impact of both implementation strategies (IS) and evidence-based interventions (EBI) can vary across contexts, and a better understanding of how and why this occurs presents fundamental but challenging questions that implementation science as a field will need to grapple with. We use causal epidemiologic methods to explore the mechanisms of why sharp distinctions between implementation strategies (IS) and efficacy of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) may fail to recognize that the effect of an EBI can be deeply intertwined and dependent on the context of the IS leading to its uptake.

METHODS

We explore the use of instrumental variable (IV) analyses as a critical tool for implementation science methods to isolate three relevant quantities within the same intervention context when exposure to an implementation strategy is random: (1) the effect of an IS on implementation outcomes (e.g., uptake), (2) effect of EBI uptake on patient outcomes, and (3) overall effectiveness of the IS (i.e., ~ implementation*efficacy). We discuss the mechanisms by which an implementation strategy can alter the context, and therefore effect, of an EBI using the underlying IV assumptions. We illustrate these concepts using examples of the implementation of new ART initiation guidelines in Zambia and community-based masking programs in Bangladesh.

RESULTS

Causal questions relevant to implementation science are answered at each stage of an IV analysis. The first stage assesses the effect of the IS (e.g., new guidelines) on EBI uptake (e.g., same-day treatment initiation). The second stage leverages the IS as an IV to estimate the complier average causal effect (CACE) of the EBI on patient outcomes (e.g., effect of same-day treatment initiation on viral suppression). The underlying assumptions of CACE formalize that the causal effect of EBI may differ in the context of a different IS because (1) the mechanisms by which individuals uptake an intervention may differ and (2) the subgroup of individuals who take up an EBI may differ. IV methods thus provide a conceptual framework for how IS and EBIs are linked and that the IS itself needs to be considered a critical contextual determinant. Moreover, it also provides rigorous methodologic tools to isolate the effect of an IS, EBI, and combined effect of the IS and EBI.

DISCUSSION

Leveraging IV methods when exposure to an implementation strategy is random helps to conceptualize the context-dependent nature of implementation strategies, EBIs, and patient outcomes. IV methods formalize that the causal effect of an EBI may be specific to the context of the implementation strategy used to promote uptake. This integration of implementation science concepts and theory with rigorous causal epidemiologic methods yields novel insights and provides important tools for exploring the next generation of questions related to mechanisms and context in implementation science.

Mapping Implementation Science with Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (MIS-ERIC): Strategies to Improve PrEP Use among Black Cisgender Women Living in Mississippi

BACKGROUND

Black women are disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic. Strategies to increase Black women's use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are needed.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted in Mississippi (MS) with Black, cisgender women at risk for HIV, and community healthcare clinic (CHC) staff who work directly with this population. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify barriers and select appropriate implementation strategies to increase PrEP care.

RESULTS

Twenty Black women and twelve CHC staff were interviewed. PrEP use barriers resulted from low HIV risk awareness, lack of PrEP knowledge, and structural and stigma-related barriers. Methods for PrEP education and motivation included normalizing PrEP in public communications, providing education at places where women congregate, and tailoring PrEP content with Black women as educators. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project provides a way for implementation scientists to select strategies that are consistent within research and practice across studies. Strategies from the ERIC project were selected to address implementation barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailoring PrEP implementation protocols to increase Black women's access, engagement, and adherence to PrEP is needed. This is one of the first implementation studies to incorporate these four implementation concepts into a single study: (1) implementation outcomes, (2) i-PARIHS, (3) ERIC's strategy list, and (4) operationalizing the strategies using the Proctor et al., guidelines. Results provide an in-depth comprehensive list of implementation strategies to increase PrEP uptake for Black women in MS.

Who's "in the room where it happens"? A taxonomy and five-step methodology for identifying and characterizing policy actors

BACKGROUND

Engaging policy actors in research design and execution is critical to increasing the practical relevance and real-world impact of policy-focused dissemination and implementation science. Identifying and selecting which policy actors to engage, particularly actors involved in "Big P" public policies such as laws, is distinct from traditional engaged research methods. This current study aimed to develop a transparent, structured method for iteratively identifying policy actors involved in key policy decisions-such as adopting evidence-based interventions at systems-scale-and to guide implementation study sampling and engagement approaches. A flexible policy actor taxonomy was developed to supplement existing methods and help identify policy developers, disseminators, implementers, enforcers, and influencers.

METHODS

A five-step methodology for identifying policy actors to potentially engage in policy dissemination and implementation research was developed. Leveraging a recent federal policy as a case study-The Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA)-publicly available documentation (e.g., websites, reports) were searched, retrieved, and coded using content analysis to characterize the organizations and individual policy actors in the "room" during policy decisions.

RESULTS

The five steps are as follows: (1) clarify the policy implementation phase(s) of interest, (2) identify relevant proverbial or actual policymaking "rooms," (3) identify and characterize organizations in the room, (4) identify and characterize policy actors in the "room," and (5) quantify (e.g., count actors across groups), summarize, and compare "rooms" to develop or select engagement approaches aligned with the "room" and actors. The use and outcomes of each step are exemplified through the FFPSA case study.

CONCLUSIONS

The pragmatic and transparent policy actor identification steps presented here can guide researchers' methods for continuous sampling and successful policy actor engagement. Future work should explore the utility of the proposed methods for guiding selection and tailoring of engagement and implementation strategies (e.g., research-policy actor partnerships) to improve both "Big P" and "little p" (administrative guidelines, procedures) policymaking and implementation in global contexts.

Implementing traumatic brain injury screening in behavioral health treatment settings: results of an explanatory sequential mixed-methods investigation

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a complex condition common among individuals treated in behavioral healthcare, but TBI screening has not been adopted in these settings which can affect optimal clinical decision-making. Integrating evidence-based practices that address complex health comorbidities into behavioral healthcare settings remains understudied in implementation science, limited by few studies using theory-driven hypotheses to disentangle relationships between proximal and medial indicators on distal implementation outcomes. Grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior, we examined providers' attitudes, perceived behavioral control (PBC), subjective norms, and intentions to adopt The Ohio State University TBI Identification Method (OSU TBI-ID) in behavioral healthcare settings.

METHODS

We used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. In Phase I, 215 providers from 25 organizations in the USA completed training introducing the OSU TBI-ID, followed by a survey assessing attitudes, PBC, norms, and intentions to screen for TBI. After 1 month, providers completed another survey assessing the number of TBI screens conducted. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) with logistic regressions. In Phase II, 20 providers were purposively selected for semi-structured interviews to expand on SEM results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis, integrated with quantitative results, and combined into joint displays.

RESULTS

Only 25% (55/215) of providers adopted TBI screening, which was driven by motivations to trial the intervention. Providers who reported more favorable attitudes (OR: 0.67, p < .001) and greater subjective norms (OR: 0.12, p < .001) toward TBI screening demonstrated increased odds of intention to screen, which resulted in greater TBI screening adoption (OR: 0.30; p < .01). PBC did not affect intentions or adoption. Providers explained that although TBI screening can improve diagnostic and clinical decision-making, they discussed that additional training, leadership engagement, and state-level mandates are needed to increase the widespread, systematic uptake of TBI screening.

CONCLUSIONS

This study advances implementation science by using theory-driven hypothesis testing to disentangle proximal and medial indicators at the provider level on TBI screening adoption. Our mixed-methods approach added in-depth contextualization and illuminated additional multilevel determinants affecting intervention adoption, which guides a more precise selection of implementation strategies.

Implementation research priorities for addressing the maternal health crisis in the USA: results from a modified Delphi study among researchers

BACKGROUND

Maternal health outcomes in the USA are far worse than in peer nations. Increasing implementation research in maternity care is critical to addressing quality gaps and unwarranted variations in care. Implementation research priorities have not yet been defined or well represented in the plans for maternal health research investments in the USA.

METHODS

This descriptive study used a modified Delphi method to solicit and rank research priorities at the intersection of implementation science and maternal health through two sequential web-based surveys. A purposeful, yet broad sample of researchers with relevant subject matter knowledge was identified through searches of published articles and grant databases. The surveys addressed five implementation research areas in maternal health: (1) practices to prioritize for broader implementation, (2) practices to prioritize for de-implementation, (3) research questions about implementation determinants, (4) research questions about implementation strategies, and (5) research questions about methods/measures.

RESULTS

Of 160 eligible researchers, 82 (51.2%) agreed to participate. Participants were predominantly female (90%) and White (75%). Sixty completed at least one of two surveys. The practices that participants prioritized for broader implementation were improved postpartum care, perinatal and postpartum mood disorder screening and management, and standardized management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. For de-implementation, practices believed to be most impactful if removed from or reduced in maternity care were cesarean delivery for low-risk patients and routine discontinuation of all psychiatric medications during pregnancy. The top methodological priorities of participants were improving the extent to which implementation science frameworks and measures address equity and developing approaches for involving patients in implementation research.

CONCLUSIONS

Through a web-based Delphi exercise, we identified implementation research priorities that researchers consider to have the greatest potential to improve the quality of maternity care in the USA. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of using modified Delphi approaches to engage researchers in setting implementation research priorities within a clinical area.

Individual-level associations between implementation leadership, climate, and anticipated outcomes: a time-lagged mediation analysis

BACKGROUND

Leaders can improve implementation outcomes by developing an organizational climate conducive to the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP). This study tested the lagged associations between individual-level perceptions of implementation leadership, implementation climate, and three anticipated implementation outcomes, that is EBP acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.

METHODS

Screening tools and treatment methods for posttraumatic stress disorder were implemented in 43 Norwegian mental health services. A sample of 494 child and adult mental health care professionals (M = 43 years, 78% female) completed surveys addressing perceptions of first-level leaders' (n = 47) implementation leadership and their clinics' implementation climate. Single-level structural equation models estimating both direct, indirect, and total effects were used to investigate whether perceived implementation climate mediated the association between perceived implementation leadership and perceived acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of screening tools and treatment methods.

RESULTS

Regarding the treatment methods, implementation leadership was associated with therapists' perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Implementation climate also mediated between implementation leadership and the outcomes. Regarding the screening tools, implementation leadership was not associated with the outcomes. However, implementation climate mediated between implementation leadership and therapists' perceptions of acceptability and feasibility, but not appropriateness. Analyses with the implementation climate subscales showed stronger associations for therapists' perceptions of the treatment methods than of screening tools.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaders may promote positive implementation outcomes, both directly and through implementation climate. With regard to the effect sizes and explained variance, results indicated that both implementation leadership and implementation climate were more strongly associated with the therapists' perceptions of the treatment methods, implemented by one group of therapists, than the screening tools, implemented by all therapists. This may imply that implementation leadership and climate may have stronger effects for smaller implementation teams within a larger system than for system-wide implementations or when the clinical interventions being implemented are more complex rather than simple ones.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials NCT03719651, 25 October 2018.

Clinician Intentions to use the Components of Parent Coaching Within Community Early Intervention Systems

PURPOSE

Parent coaching is a complex, psychosocial intervention with multiple core components. Clinicians' use of these core components may be influenced by distinct factors; no research has examined whether clinician perceptions of parent coaching vary across core coaching components. This study aimed to examine the extent to which clinicians working with families of young autistic children in publicly funded early intervention intend to use core parent coaching components, and to examine how closely psychological factors relate to providers' intentions to use each component.

METHODS

Using the Theory of Planned Behavior as a framework, this study compared the strength of clinicians' intentions across five core parent coaching components: collaboration with parents, delivering the intervention within daily routines, demonstrating the intervention, providing in-vivo feedback, and reflection and problem solving. We examined the associations between intentions and psychological determinants of intentions (i.e., attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy) for each component.

RESULTS

Clinicians' average intentions varied by core component, with strongest intentions for demonstrating the intervention strategy for a parent. The associations between intentions and psychological determinants also varied by core component. Attitudes, injunctive norms, and self-efficacy, but not descriptive norms, significantly related to clinicians' intentions to use collaboration and daily routines, whereas attitudes and descriptive norms, but not injunctive norms and self-efficacy, significantly related to clinicians' intentions to use feedback and reflection and problem solving.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that implementation strategies should be tailored to the specific intervention component to be most efficient and effective. The results also provide examples of potentially malleable factors that implementation strategies can strategically target.

Refining Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategy surveys using cognitive interviews with frontline providers

BACKGROUND

The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation includes 73 defined implementation strategies clustered into nine content areas. This taxonomy has been used to track implementation strategies over time using surveys. This study aimed to improve the ERIC survey using cognitive interviews with non-implementation scientist clinicians.

METHODS

Starting in 2015, we developed and fielded annual ERIC surveys to evaluate liver care in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). We invited providers who had completed at least three surveys to participate in cognitive interviews (October 2020 to October 2021). Before the interviews, participants reviewed the complete 73-item ERIC survey and marked which strategies were unclear due to wording, conceptual confusion, or overlap with other strategies. They then engaged in semi-structured cognitive interviews to describe the experience of completing the survey and elaborate on which strategies required further clarification.

RESULTS

Twelve VA providers completed surveys followed by cognitive interviews. The "Engage Consumer" and "Support Clinicians" clusters were rated most highly in terms of conceptual and wording clarity. In contrast, the "Financial" cluster had the most wording and conceptual confusion. The "Adapt and Tailor to Context" cluster strategies were considered to have the most redundancy. Providers outlined ways in which the strategies could be clearer in terms of wording (32%), conceptual clarity (51%), and clarifying the distinction between strategies (51%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive interviews with ERIC survey participants allowed us to identify and address issues with strategy wording, combine conceptually indistinct strategies, and disaggregate multi-barreled strategies. Improvements made to the ERIC survey based on these findings will ultimately assist VA and other institutions in designing, evaluating, and replicating quality improvement efforts.

Global research priorities related to the World Health Organization Labour Care Guide: results of a global consultation

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) published the WHO Labour Care Guide (LCG) in 2020 to support the implementation of its 2018 recommendations on intrapartum care. The WHO LCG promotes evidence-based labour monitoring and stimulates shared decision-making between maternity care providers and labouring women. There is a need to identify critical questions that will contribute to defining the research agenda relating to implementation of the WHO LCG.

METHODS

This mixed-methods prioritization exercise, adapted from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) and James Lind Alliance (JLA) methods, combined a metrics-based design with a qualitative, consensus-building consultation in three phases. The exercise followed the reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). First, 30 stakeholders were invited to submit online ideas or questions (generation of research ideas). Then, 220 stakeholders were invited to score "research avenues" (i.e., broad research ideas that could be answered through a set of research questions) against six independent and equally weighted criteria (scoring of research avenues). Finally, a technical working group (TWG) of 20 purposively selected stakeholders reviewed the scoring, and refined and ranked the research avenues (consensus-building meeting).

RESULTS

Initially, 24 stakeholders submitted 89 research ideas or questions. A list of 10 consolidated research avenues was scored by 75/220 stakeholders. During the virtual consensus-building meeting, research avenues were refined, and the top three priorities agreed upon were: (1) optimize implementation strategies of WHO LCG, (2) improve understanding of the effect of WHO LCG on maternal and perinatal outcomes, and the process and experience of labour and childbirth care, and (3) assess the effect of the WHO LCG in special situations or settings. Research avenues related to the organization of care and resource utilization ranked lowest during both the scoring and consensus-building process.

CONCLUSION

This systematic and transparent process should encourage researchers, program implementers, and funders to support research aligned with the identified priorities related to WHO LCG. An international collaborative platform is recommended to implement prioritized research by using harmonized research tools, establishing a repository of research priorities studies, and scaling-up successful research results.

Theorizing is for everybody: Advancing the process of theorizing in implementation science

There has been a call to shift from treating theories as static products to engaging in a process of theorizing that develops, modifies, and advances implementation theory through the accumulation of knowledge. Stimulating theoretical advances is necessary to improve our understanding of the causal processes that influence implementation and to enhance the value of existing theory. We argue that a primary reason that existing theory has lacked iteration and evolution is that the process for theorizing is obscure and daunting. We present recommendations for advancing the process of theorizing in implementation science to draw more people in the process of developing and advancing theory.

A Perfect Storm to Set the Stage for Ontological Exploration: Response to Commentaries on "Emotional Well-Being: What It Is and Why It Matters"

Our target article (Park et al., this issue) described the process of developing a provisional conceptualization of emotional well-being (EWB). In that article, we considered strengths and gaps in current perspectives on a variety of related concepts and ways that the proposed conceptualization of EWB informs our evaluation of measures and methods of assessment and identification of its causes and consequences. We concluded with recommendations for moving the framework and the field forward. Eight rich, thoughtful, and highly engaged commentaries addressed the target article. Collectively, these commentaries illustrate both points of consensus and areas of substantial disagreement, providing a potential roadmap for continued work. In this response, we summarize key issues raised and highlight those points raised by multiple commentators or that we considered seminal to advancing future discussion and research.

Conceptual tensions and practical trade-offs in tailoring implementation interventions

Tailored interventions have been shown to be effective and tailoring is a popular process with intuitive appeal for researchers and practitioners. However, the concept and process are ill-defined in implementation science. Descriptions of how tailoring has been applied in practice are often absent or insufficient in detail. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to synthesize and replicate efforts. It also hides the trade-offs for researchers and practitioners that are inherent in the process. In this article we juxtapose the growing prominence of tailoring with four key questions surrounding the process. Specifically, we ask: (1) what constitutes tailoring and when does it begin and end?; (2) how is it expected to work?; (3) who and what does the tailoring process involve?; and (4) how should tailoring be evaluated? We discuss these questions as a call to action for better reporting and further research to bring clarity, consistency, and coherence to tailoring, a key process in implementation science.

Do the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies adequately address sustainment?

Background

Sustainability science is an emerging area within implementation science. There is limited evidence regarding strategies to best support the continued delivery and sustained impact of evidence-based interventions (EBIs). To build such evidence, clear definitions, and ways to operationalize strategies specific and/or relevant to sustainment are required. Taxonomies and compilations such as the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) were developed to describe and organize implementation strategies. This study aimed to adapt, refine, and extend the ERIC compilation to incorporate an explicit focus on sustainment. We also sought to classify the specific phase(s) of implementation when the ERIC strategies could be considered and applied.

Methods

We used a two-phase iterative approach to adapt the ERIC. This involved: (1) adapting through consensus (ERIC strategies were mapped against barriers to sustainment as identified via the literature to identify if existing implementation strategies were sufficient to address sustainment, needed wording changes, or if new strategies were required) and; (2) preliminary application of this sustainment-explicit ERIC glossary (strategies described in published sustainment interventions were coded against the glossary to identify if any further amendments were needed). All team members independently reviewed changes and provided feedback for subsequent iterations until consensus was reached. Following this, and utilizing the same consensus process, the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework was applied to identify when each strategy may be best employed across phases.

Results

Surface level changes were made to the definitions of 41 of the 73 ERIC strategies to explicitly address sustainment. Four additional strategies received deeper changes in their definitions. One new strategy was identified: Communicate with stakeholders the continued impact of the evidence-based practice. Application of the EPIS identified that at least three-quarters of strategies should be considered during preparation and implementation phases as they are likely to impact sustainment.

Conclusion

A sustainment-explicit ERIC glossary is provided to help researchers and practitioners develop, test, or apply strategies to improve the sustainment of EBIs in real-world settings. Whilst most ERIC strategies only needed minor changes, their impact on sustainment needs to be tested empirically which may require significant refinement or additions in the future.

Precision Implementation: An Approach to Mechanism Testing in Implementation Research

Advancing mechanism-focused research in implementation science is a priority given its potential to improve tailoring and efficiency of implementation strategies. Experimental therapeutics, or experimental medicine, offers an approach for mechanism testing that has been promoted by the NIH Science of Behavior Change and endorsed by the National Institute for Mental Health. This approach has been applied across the translational spectrum - with initial applications to biological research and more recent applications to psychosocial treatment development research. We describe further advancement of experimental therapeutics along the translational spectrum and describe how it is ideally suited to inform precision experimental tests of implementation strategy mechanisms, which we term precision implementation. Such an approach to mechanism testing will allow for identification of causal dose-response relationships between implementation strategies, presumed mechanisms, and implementation outcomes. We discuss the tension between the scientific rigor required to conduct mechanism-focused research using experimental therapeutics and the "real world" conditions in which implementation research takes place. We provide a series of example studies that show "beginning to end" application of this framework in research focused on provider implementation of an evidence-based intervention in routine clinical care settings.

"We start where we are": a qualitative study of barriers and pragmatic solutions to the assessment and reporting of implementation strategy fidelity

BACKGROUND

Fidelity measurement of implementation strategies is underdeveloped and underreported, and the level of reporting is decreasing over time. Failing to properly measure the factors that affect the delivery of an implementation strategy may obscure the link between a strategy and its outcomes. Barriers to assessing and reporting implementation strategy fidelity among researchers are not well understood. The aims of this qualitative study were to identify barriers to fidelity measurement and pragmatic pathways towards improvement.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews among researchers conducting implementation trials. We utilized a theory-informed interview approach to elicit the barriers and possible solutions to implementation strategy fidelity assessment and reporting. Reflexive-thematic analysis guided coding and memo-writing to determine key themes regarding barriers and solutions.

RESULTS

Twenty-two implementation researchers were interviewed. Participants agreed that implementation strategy fidelity was an essential element of implementation trials and that its assessment and reporting should improve. Key thematic barriers focused on (1) a current lack of validated fidelity tools with the need to assess fidelity in the short term, (2) the complex nature of some implementation strategies, (3) conceptual complications when assessing fidelity within mechanisms-focused implementation research, and (4) structural issues related to funding and publishing. Researchers also suggested pragmatic solutions to overcome each barrier. Respondents reported using specification and tracking data in the short term until validated tools become available. Participants suggested that researchers with strategy-specific content expertise lead the way in identifying core components and setting fidelity requirements for them. Addressing the third barrier, participants provided examples of what pragmatic prospective and retrospective fidelity assessments might look like along a mechanistic pathway. Finally, researchers described approaches to minimize costs of data collection, as well as more structural accountability like adopting and enforcing reporting guidelines or changing the structure of funding opportunities.

DISCUSSION

We propose short- and long-term priorities for improving the assessment and reporting of implementation strategy fidelity and the quality of implementation research.

CONCLUSIONS

A better understanding of the barriers to implementation strategy fidelity assessment may pave the way towards pragmatic solutions.

The mechanics of implementation strategies and measures: advancing the study of implementation mechanisms

BACKGROUND

There is a fundamental gap in understanding the causal mechanisms by which strategies for implementing evidence-based practices address local barriers to effective, appropriate service delivery. Until this gap is addressed, scientific knowledge and practical guidance about which implementation strategies to use in which contexts will remain elusive. This research project aims to identify plausible strategy-mechanism linkages, develop causal models for mechanism evaluation, produce measures needed to evaluate such linkages, and make these models, methods, and measures available in a user-friendly website. The specific aims are as follows: (1) build a database of strategy-mechanism linkages and associated causal pathway diagrams, (2) develop psychometrically strong, pragmatic measures of mechanisms, and (3) develop and disseminate a website of implementation mechanisms knowledge for use by diverse stakeholders.

METHODS

For the first aim, a combination of qualitative inquiry, expert panel methods, and causal pathway diagramming will be used to identify and confirm plausible strategy-mechanism linkages and articulate moderators, preconditions, and proximal and distal outcomes associated with those linkages. For the second aim, rapid-cycle measure development and testing methods will be employed to create reliable, valid, pragmatic measures of six mechanisms of common strategies for which no high-quality measures exist. For the third aim, we will develop a user-friendly website and searchable database that incorporates user-centered design, disseminating the final product using social marketing principles.

DISCUSSION

Once strategy-mechanism linkages are identified using this multi-method approach, implementation scientists can use the searchable database to develop tailored implementation strategies and generate more robust evidence about which strategies work best in which contexts. Moreover, practitioners will be better able to select implementation strategies to address their specific implementation problems. New horizons in implementation strategy development, optimization, evaluation, and deployment are expected to be more attainable as a result of this research, which will lead to enhanced implementation of evidence-based interventions for cancer control, and ultimately improvements in patient outcomes.

A randomized controlled trial in schools aimed at exploring mechanisms of change of a multifaceted implementation strategy for promoting mental health at the workplace

Background

This study will explore implementation mechanisms through which a single implementation strategy and a multifaceted implementation strategy operate to affect the implementation outcome, which is fidelity to the Guideline For The Prevention of Mental Ill Health within schools. The guideline gives recommendations on how workplaces can prevent mental ill health among their personnel by managing social and organizational risks factors in the work environment. Schools are chosen as the setting for the study due to the high prevalence of mental ill health among teachers and other personnel working in schools. The study builds on our previous research, in which we compared the effectiveness of the two strategies on fidelity to the guideline. Small improvements in guideline adherence were observed for the majority of the indicators in the multifaceted strategy group. This study will focus on exploring the underlying mechanisms of change through which the implementation strategies may operate to affect the implementation outcome.

Methods

We will conduct a cluster-randomized-controlled trial among public schools (n=55 schools) in Sweden. Schools are randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive a multifaceted strategy (implementation teams, educational meeting, ongoing training, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles) or a single strategy (implementation teams, educational meeting). The implementation outcome is fidelity to the guideline. Hypothesized mediators originate from the COM-B model. A mixed-method design will be employed, entailing a qualitative study of implementation process embedded within the cluster-randomized controlled trail examining implementation mechanisms. The methods will be used in a complementary manner to get a full understanding of the implementation mechanisms.

Discussion

This implementation study will provide valuable knowledge on how implementation strategies work (or fail) to affect implementation outcomes. The knowledge gained will aid the selection of effective implementation strategies that fit specific determinants, which is a priority for the field. Despite recent initiatives to advance the understanding of implementation mechanisms, studies testing these mechanisms are still uncommon.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.org dr.nr 2020-01214.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01230-7.

Examining the complementarity between the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies and the behaviour change technique taxonomy: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Efforts to generate evidence for implementation strategies are frustrated by insufficient description. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation names and defines implementation strategies; however, further work is needed to describe the actions involved. One potentially complementary taxonomy is the behaviour change techniques (BCT) taxonomy. We aimed to examine the extent and nature of the overlap between these taxonomies.

METHODS

Definitions and descriptions of 73 strategies in the ERIC compilation were analysed. First, each description was deductively coded using the BCT taxonomy. Second, a typology was developed to categorise the extent of overlap between ERIC strategies and BCTs. Third, three implementation scientists independently rated their level of agreement with the categorisation and BCT coding. Finally, discrepancies were settled through online consensus discussions. Additional patterns of complementarity between ERIC strategies and BCTs were labelled thematically. Descriptive statistics summarise the frequency of coded BCTs and the number of strategies mapped to each of the categories of the typology.

RESULTS

Across the 73 strategies, 41/93 BCTs (44%) were coded, with 'restructuring the social environment' as the most frequently coded (n=18 strategies, 25%). There was direct overlap between one strategy (change physical structure and equipment) and one BCT ('restructuring physical environment'). Most strategy descriptions (n=64) had BCTs that were clearly indicated (n=18), and others where BCTs were probable but not explicitly described (n=31) or indicated multiple types of overlap (n=15). For some strategies, the presence of additional BCTs was dependent on the form of delivery. Some strategies served as examples of broad BCTs operationalised for implementation. For eight strategies, there were no BCTs indicated, or they did not appear to focus on changing behaviour. These strategies reflected preparatory stages and targeted collective cognition at the system level rather than behaviour change at the service delivery level.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates how the ERIC compilation and BCT taxonomy can be integrated to specify active ingredients, providing an opportunity to better understand mechanisms of action. Our results highlight complementarity rather than redundancy. More efforts to integrate these or other taxonomies will aid strategy developers and build links between existing silos in implementation science.

Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem

BACKGROUND

Implementation science is at a sufficiently advanced stage that it is appropriate for the field to reflect on progress thus far in achieving its vision, with a goal of charting a path forward. In this debate, we offer such reflections and report on potential threats that might stymie progress, as well as opportunities to enhance the success and impact of the field, from the perspective of a group of US-based researchers.

MAIN BODY

Ten mid-career extramurally funded US-based researchers completed a "pre-mortem" or a group brainstorming exercise that leverages prospective hindsight to imagine that an event has already occurred and to generate an explanation for it - to reduce the likelihood of a poor outcome. We came to consensus on six key themes related to threats and opportunities for the field: (1) insufficient impact, (2) too much emphasis on being a "legitimate science," (3) re-creation of the evidence-to-practice gap, (4) difficulty balancing accessibility and field coherence, (5) inability to align timelines and priorities with partners, and (6) overly complex implementation strategies and approaches.

CONCLUSION

We submit this debate piece to generate further discussion with other implementation partners as our field continues to develop and evolve. We hope the key opportunities identified will enhance the future of implementation research in the USA and spark discussion across international groups. We will continue to learn with humility about how best to implement with the goal of achieving equitable population health impact at scale.

Implementation strategies to promote measurement-based care in schools: evidence from mental health experts across the USA

BACKGROUND

Despite an established taxonomy of implementation strategies, minimal guidance exists for how to select and tailor strategies to specific practices and contexts. We employed a replicable method to obtain stakeholder perceptions of the most feasible and important implementation strategies to increase mental health providers' use of measurement-based care (MBC) in schools. MBC is the routine use of patient-reported progress measures throughout treatment to inform patient-centered, data-driven treatment adjustments.

METHODS

A national sample of 52 school mental health providers and researchers completed two rounds of modified Delphi surveys to rate the relevance, importance, and feasibility of 33 implementation strategies identified for school settings. Strategies were reduced and definitions refined using a multimethod approach. Final importance and feasibility ratings were plotted on "go-zone" graphs and compared across providers and researchers to identify top-rated strategies.

RESULTS

The initial 33 strategies were rated as "relevant" or "relevant with changes" to MBC in schools. Importance and feasibility ratings were high overall for both survey rounds; on a scale of 1 to 5, importance ratings (3.61-4.48) were higher than feasibility ratings (2.55-4.06) on average. Survey 1 responses resulted in a reduced, refined set of 21 strategies, and six were rated most important and feasible on Survey 2: (1) assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators; (2) identify and prepare champions; (3) develop a usable implementation plan; (4) offer a provider-informed menu of free, brief measures; (5) develop and provide access to training materials; and (6) make implementation easier by removing burdensome documentation tasks. Provider and researcher ratings were not significantly different, with a few exceptions: providers reported higher feasibility and importance of removing burdensome paperwork than researchers, providers reported higher feasibility of train-the trainer approaches than researchers, and researchers reported higher importance of monitoring fidelity than providers.

CONCLUSIONS

The education sector is the most common setting for child and adolescent mental health service delivery in the USA. Effective MBC implementation in schools has the potential to elevate the quality of care received by many children, adolescents, and their families. This empirically derived, targeted list of six implementation strategies offers potential efficiencies for future testing of MBC implementation in schools.

Care team and practice-level implementation strategies to optimize pediatric collaborative care: study protocol for a cluster-randomized hybrid type III trial

BACKGROUND

Implementation facilitation is an effective strategy to support the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), but our understanding of multilevel strategies and the mechanisms of change within the "black box" of implementation facilitation is limited. This implementation trial seeks to disentangle and evaluate the effects of facilitation strategies that separately target the care team and leadership levels on implementation of a collaborative care model in pediatric primary care. Strategies targeting the provider care team (TEAM) should engage team-level mechanisms, and strategies targeting leaders (LEAD) should engage organizational mechanisms.

METHODS

We will conduct a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial in a 2 × 2 factorial design to evaluate the main and interactive effects of TEAM and LEAD and test for mediation and moderation of effects. Twenty-four pediatric primary care practices will receive standard REP training to implement Doctor-Office Collaborative Care (DOCC) and then be randomized to (1) Standard REP only, (2) TEAM, (3) LEAD, or (4) TEAM + LEAD. Implementation outcomes are DOCC service delivery and change in practice-level care management competencies. Clinical outcomes are child symptom severity and quality of life.

DISCUSSION

This statewide trial is one of the first to test the unique and synergistic effects of implementation strategies targeting care teams and practice leadership. It will advance our knowledge of effective care team and practice-level implementation strategies and mechanisms of change. Findings will support efforts to improve common child behavioral health conditions by optimizing scale-up and sustainment of CCMs in a pediatric patient-centered medical home.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04946253 . Registered June 30, 2021.

Implementing traumatic brain injury screening in behavioral healthcare: protocol for a prospective mixed methods study

Background

Characteristics of both individuals and innovations are foundational determinants to the adoption of evidenced-based practices (EBPs). However, our understanding about what drives EBP adoption is limited by few studies examining relationships among implementation determinants and implementation outcomes through theory-driven hypothesis testing. Therefore, drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Diffusion of Innovations Theory, this study will disentangle relationships between provider characteristics and innovation factors on the early adoption of the Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method (OSU TBI-ID) in behavioral health settings.

Methods

This study will utilize an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. In Phase I (quantitative), Time 1, we will investigate behavioral health providers (N = 200) attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and intentions to screen for TBI upon completion of a video module introducing the OSU TBI-ID. At Time 2, we will examine the number of TBI screens conducted over the previous month, as well as the feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of using the OSU TBI-ID in practice. Structural equation modeling will be used to determine whether provider characteristics predict TBI screening intentions, and whether intentions mediate actual TBI screening behaviors. We will then test whether feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of the OSU TBI-ID moderates the relationship between intentions and TBI screening behaviors. In Phase II (qualitative), we will develop an interview guide using results from Phase I and will conduct semi-structured interviews with providers (N = 20) to assess contextual determinants of TBI screening adoption. Qualitative data will be thematically analyzed using sensitizing concepts from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and integrated with the quantitative results using a joint display.

Discussion

This mixed methods study capitalizes on two theory-driven hypotheses bridging proximal (e.g., screening intent) to distal (actual behaviors) implementation outcomes and will contextualize these results qualitatively to advance our understanding about why TBI screening adoption has failed to translate to the behavioral healthcare context. Results of this study will offer insights into what is driving TBI screening adoption so that implementation strategies can be selected with greater precision to improve the adoption, sustainment, and scale-up of TBI screening in behavioral healthcare.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00261-x.

Applying Theory to Explain the Influence of Factors External to an Organization on the Implementation of an Evidence-Based Intervention

Despite its widely acknowledged influence on implementation, limited research has been done on how the external environment (i.e., outer setting) determines when organizations adopt and implement new interventions. Determinant frameworks identify several outer setting-level factors such as funding streams, inter-organizational relationships, and peer pressure. However, these frameworks do not explain how or why outer-setting factors influence implementation. To advance research in this area, we argue for the importance of deriving theory-based propositions from organization theory to explain how outer setting factors influence organizations. Drawing on the work of the Organization Theory in Implementation Science (OTIS) project, we identified 20 propositions from five classic organization theories-Complexity Theory, Contingency Theory, Institutional Theory, Resource Dependence Theory, and Transaction Cost Economics. We then applied those propositions to hypothesize relationships among outer setting factors, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes in five case studies of evidenced-based tobacco control interventions. The five case studies address the implementation of smoke-free policies, community health worker-led tobacco education and cessation programs, 5 A's (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange), point-of-sale tobacco marketing policy interventions, and quitlines. The case studies illustrate how propositions may be used to guide the selection and testing of implementation strategies. Organization theories provide a menu of propositions that offer guidance for selecting and optimizing high-leverage implementation strategies that target factors at the level of outer setting. Furthermore, these propositions suggest testable hypotheses regarding the mechanisms underlying the influence of outer-setting factors on how and why organizations adopt and implement interventions.

Harnessing the Single-Session Intervention approach to promote scalable implementation of evidence-based practices in healthcare

Effective implementation of evidence-based practices often involves multi-level strategies targeting individual-, organizational-, and system-level determinants of change. Although these multi-level implementation approaches can successfully facilitate EBP uptake, they tend to be complex and resource intensive. Accordingly, there is a need for theory-driven, generalizable approaches that can enhance efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and scalability of existing implementation approaches. We propose the Single-Session Intervention approach as an unexplored path to developing low-cost and scalable implementation strategies, especially those targeting individual-level behavior change. We argue that single-session strategies (S3) for implementation, which can simultaneously target myriad barriers to individual behavior change, may promote clinicians' EBP uptake and sustainment in a manner that is low-resource and scalable. We first overview the evidence-base supporting the Single-Session Intervention approach for patient-level outcomes; situate this approach within the implementation science literature by outlining its intersections with a leading framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), as an exemplar; and illustrate how the TDF might directly inform the design and evaluation of single-session strategies for EBP implementation. Overall, single-session strategies (S3) for implementation reflect a promising but yet-to-be-tested means of streamlining and scaling individual-level behavior change efforts in healthcare settings. Future partnered research is needed to gauge the potential of this approach across diverse clinical and community contexts.

Advancing the reporting of mechanisms in implementation science: A guideline for reporting mediation analyses (AGReMA)

Well-conducted mediation analyses have the potential to move implementation science forward by better understanding how or why implementation strategies cause their effects on outcomes. The AGReMA statement provides authors with recommendations for reporting primary and secondary mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies. Improved reporting of studies that use mediation analyses could help produce publications that are complete, accurate, transparent, and reproducible.