Enhancing the reporting of implementation research

Implementation of Health IT for Cancer Screening in US Primary Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

A substantial percentage of the US population is not up to date on guideline-recommended cancer screenings. Identifying interventions that effectively improve screening rates would enhance the delivery of such screening. Interventions involving health IT (HIT) show promise, but much remains unknown about how HIT is optimized to support cancer screening in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to identify (1) HIT-based interventions that effectively support guideline concordance in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening provision and follow-up in the primary care setting and (2) barriers or facilitators to the implementation of effective HIT in this setting.

METHODS

Following scoping review guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases for US-based studies from 2015 to 2021 that featured HIT targeting breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening in primary care. Studies were dual screened using a review criteria checklist. Data extraction was guided by the following implementation science frameworks: the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework; the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy; and implementation strategy reporting domains. It was also guided by the Integrated Technology Implementation Model that incorporates theories of both implementation science and technology adoption. Reporting was guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews).

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (85/101, 84.2%) involved electronic health record-based HIT interventions. The most common HIT function was clinical decision support, primarily used for panel management or at the point of care. Most studies related to HIT targeting colorectal cancer screening (83/101, 82.2%), followed by studies related to breast cancer screening (28/101, 27.7%), and cervical cancer screening (19/101, 18.8%). Improvements in cancer screening were associated with HIT-based interventions in most studies (36/54, 67% of colorectal cancer-relevant studies; 9/14, 64% of breast cancer-relevant studies; and 7/10, 70% of cervical cancer-relevant studies). Most studies (79/101, 78.2%) reported on the reach of certain interventions, while 17.8% (18/101) of the included studies reported on the adoption or maintenance. Reported barriers and facilitators to HIT adoption primarily related to inner context factors of primary care settings (eg, staffing and organizational policies that support or hinder HIT adoption). Implementation strategies for HIT adoption were reported in 23.8% (24/101) of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantial evidence gaps regarding the effectiveness of HIT-based interventions, especially those targeting guideline-concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening in primary care. Even less is known about how to enhance the adoption of technologies that have been proven effective in supporting breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening. Research is needed to ensure that the potential benefits of effective HIT-based interventions equitably reach diverse primary care populations.

A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies

BACKGROUND

Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis.

RESULTS

Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to "train and educate stakeholders" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to "develop stakeholder interrelationships" (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Application of the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of strategies to health intervention implementation in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project developed a compilation of implementation strategies that are intended to standardize reporting and evaluation. Little is known about the application of ERIC in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically reviewed the literature on the use and specification of ERIC strategies for health intervention implementation in LMICs to identify gaps and inform future research.

METHODS

We searched peer-reviewed articles published through March 2023 in any language that (1) were conducted in an LMIC and (2) cited seminal ERIC articles or (3) mentioned ERIC in the title or abstract. Two co-authors independently screened all titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, then abstracted study, intervention, and implementation strategy characteristics of included studies.

RESULTS

The final sample included 60 studies describing research from all world regions, with over 30% published in the final year of our review period. Most studies took place in healthcare settings (n = 52, 86.7%), while 11 (18.2%) took place in community settings and four (6.7%) at the policy level. Across studies, 548 distinct implementation strategies were identified with a median of six strategies (range 1-46 strategies) included in each study. Most studies (n = 32, 53.3%) explicitly matched implementation strategies used for the ERIC compilation. Among those that did, 64 (87.3%) of the 73 ERIC strategies were represented. Many of the strategies not cited included those that target systems- or policy-level barriers. Nearly 85% of strategies included some component of strategy specification, though most only included specification of their action (75.2%), actor (57.3%), and action target (60.8%). A minority of studies employed randomized trials or high-quality quasi-experimental designs; only one study evaluated implementation strategy effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

While ERIC use in LMICs is rapidly growing, its application has not been consistent nor commonly used to test strategy effectiveness. Research in LMICs must better specify strategies and evaluate their impact on outcomes. Moreover, strategies that are tested need to be better specified, so they may be compared across contexts. Finally, strategies targeting policy-, systems-, and community-level determinants should be further explored.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021268374.

Exploring the intersection of hermeneutics and implementation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

An enduring challenge remains about how to effectively implement programs, services, or practices. Too often, implementation does not achieve its intended effectiveness, fidelity, and sustainability, even when frameworks or theories determine implementation strategies and actions. A different approach is needed. This scoping review joined two markedly different bodies of literature: implementation and hermeneutics. Implementation is usually depicted as focused, direct, and somewhat linear, while hermeneutics attends to the messiness of everyday experience and human interaction. Both, however, are concerned with practical solutions to real-life problems. The purpose of the scoping review was to summarize existing knowledge on how a hermeneutic approach has informed the process of implementing health programs, services, or practices.

METHODS

We completed a scoping review by taking a Gadamerian hermeneutic approach to the JBI scoping review method. Following a pilot search, we searched eight health-related electronic databases using broadly stated terms such as implementation and hermeneutics. A diverse research team that included a patient and healthcare leader, working in pairs, independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles. Through the use of inclusion criteria and full-team dialogue, we selected the final articles and identified their characteristics, hermeneutic features, and implementation components.

RESULTS

Electronic searches resulted in 2871 unique studies. After full-text screening, we retained six articles that addressed both hermeneutics and implementing a program, service, or practice. The studies varied widely in location, topic, implementation strategies, and hermeneutic approach. All addressed assumptions underpinning implementation, the human dimensions of implementing, power differentials, and knowledge creation during implementation. All studies addressed issues foundational to implementing such as cross-cultural communication and surfacing and addressing tensions during processes of change. The studies showed how creating conceptual knowledge was a precursor to concrete, instrumental knowledge for action and behavioral change. Finally, each study demonstrated how the hermeneutic process of the fusion of horizons created new understandings needed for implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Hermeneutics and implementation have rarely been combined. The studies reveal important features that can contribute to implementation success. Implementers and implementation research may benefit from understanding, articulating, and communicating hermeneutic approaches that foster the relational and contextual foundations necessary for successful implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered at the Centre for Open Science on September 10, 2019. MacLeod M, Snadden D, McCaffrey G, Zimmer L, Wilson E, Graham I, et al. A hermeneutic approach to advancing implementation science: a scoping review protocol 2019. Accessed at osf.io/eac37.

Too much theory and not enough practice? The challenge of implementation science application in healthcare practice

BACKGROUND

Implementation science (IS) should contribute to maintaining high standards of care across healthcare systems and enhancing care practices. However, despite the evident need for greater and more rapid uptake and integration of evidence in practice, IS design and methodology fall short of the needs of effective translation.

AIM

In this paper we examine what it is about IS that makes it so appealing for effective uptake of interventions in routine practice, and yet so difficult to achieve. We propose a number of ways that implementation scientists could build mutual relationships with healthcare practitioners and other stakeholders including public members to ensure greater shared care practices, and highlight the value of IS training, collaborative educational events, and co-designed research.

DISCUSSION

More consideration should be given to IS applications in healthcare contexts. Implementation scientists can make a valuable contribution by mobilizing theory and improving practice. However, goals for an evidence-based system may be more appropriately achieved through greater outreach and collaboration, with methods that are flexible to support rapid implementation in complex adaptive systems. Collective learning and mutual trust can be cultivated by embedding researchers into healthcare services while offering greater opportunities for practitioners to learn about, and engage in, implementation research.

CONCLUSION

To bridge the worlds of healthcare practice and IS, researchers could be more consistent in the relationships they build with professionals and the public, communicating through a shared language and co-joining practical approaches to effective implementation. This will build capacity for improved collaboration and foster respectful, interdisciplinary relationships.

The case for prioritizing implementation strategy fidelity measurement: benefits and challenges

Implementation strategies are systematic approaches to improve the uptake and sustainability of evidence-based interventions. They frequently focus on changing provider behavior through the provision of interventions such as training, coaching, and audit-and-feedback. Implementation strategies often impact intermediate behavioral outcomes like provider guideline adherence, in turn improving patient outcomes. Fidelity of implementation strategy delivery is defined as the extent to which an implementation strategy is carried out as it was designed. Implementation strategy fidelity measurement is under-developed and under-reported, with the quality of reporting decreasing over time. Benefits of fidelity measurement include the exploration of the extent to which observed effects are moderated by fidelity, and critical information about Type-III research errors, or the likelihood that null findings result from implementation strategy fidelity failure. Reviews of implementation strategy efficacy often report wide variation across studies, commonly calling for increased implementation strategy fidelity measurement to help explain variations. Despite the methodological benefits of rigorous fidelity measurement, implementation researchers face multi-level challenges and complexities. Challenges include the measurement of a complex variable, multiple data collection modalities with varying precision and costs, and the need for fidelity measurement to change in-step with adaptations. In this position paper, we weigh these costs and benefits and ultimately contend that implementation strategy fidelity measurement and reporting should be improved in trials of implementation strategies. We offer pragmatic solutions for researchers to make immediate improvements like the use of mixed methods or innovative data collection and analysis techniques, the inclusion of implementation strategy fidelity assessment in reporting guidelines, and the staged development of fidelity tools across the evolution of an implementation strategy. We also call for additional research into the barriers and facilitators of implementation strategy fidelity measurement to further clarify the best path forward.

Strengthening methods for tracking adaptations and modifications to implementation strategies

BACKGROUND

Developing effective implementation strategies requires adequate tracking and reporting on their application. Guidelines exist for defining and reporting on implementation strategy characteristics, but not for describing how strategies are adapted and modified in practice. We built on existing implementation science methods to provide novel methods for tracking strategy modifications.

METHODS

These methods were developed within a stepped-wedge trial of an implementation strategy package designed to help community clinics adopt social determinants of health-related activities: in brief, an 'Implementation Support Team' supports clinics through a multi-step process. These methods involve five components: 1) describe planned strategy; 2) track its use; 3) monitor barriers; 4) describe modifications; and 5) identify / describe new strategies. We used the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy to categorize strategies, Proctor et al.'s reporting framework to describe them, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to code barriers / contextual factors necessitating modifications, and elements of the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced to describe strategy modifications.

RESULTS

We present three examples of the use of these methods: 1) modifications made to a facilitation-focused strategy (clinics reported that certain meetings were too frequent, so their frequency was reduced in subsequent wedges); 2) a clinic-level strategy addition which involved connecting one study clinic seeking help with community health worker-related workflows to another that already had such a workflow in place; 3) a study-level strategy addition which involved providing assistance in overcoming previously encountered (rather than de novo) challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

These methods for tracking modifications made to implementation strategies build on existing methods, frameworks, and guidelines; however, as none of these were a perfect fit, we made additions to several frameworks as indicated, and used certain frameworks' components selectively. While these methods are time-intensive, and more work is needed to streamline them, they are among the first such methods presented to implementation science. As such, they may be used in research on assessing effective strategy modifications and for replication and scale-up of effective strategies. We present these methods to guide others seeking to document implementation strategies and modifications to their studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03607617 (first posted 31/07/2018).

Strengthening methods for tracking adaptations and modifications to implementation strategies

BACKGROUND

Developing effective implementation strategies requires adequate tracking and reporting on their application. Guidelines exist for defining and reporting on implementation strategy characteristics, but not for describing how strategies are adapted and modified in practice. We built on existing implementation science methods to provide novel methods for tracking strategy modifications.

METHODS

These methods were developed within a stepped-wedge trial of an implementation strategy package designed to help community clinics adopt social determinants of health-related activities: in brief, an 'Implementation Support Team' supports clinics through a multi-step process. These methods involve five components: 1) describe planned strategy; 2) track its use; 3) monitor barriers; 4) describe modifications; and 5) identify / describe new strategies. We used the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy to categorize strategies, Proctor et al.'s reporting framework to describe them, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to code barriers / contextual factors necessitating modifications, and elements of the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced to describe strategy modifications.

RESULTS

We present three examples of the use of these methods: 1) modifications made to a facilitation-focused strategy (clinics reported that certain meetings were too frequent, so their frequency was reduced in subsequent wedges); 2) a clinic-level strategy addition which involved connecting one study clinic seeking help with community health worker-related workflows to another that already had such a workflow in place; 3) a study-level strategy addition which involved providing assistance in overcoming previously encountered (rather than de novo) challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

These methods for tracking modifications made to implementation strategies build on existing methods, frameworks, and guidelines; however, as none of these were a perfect fit, we made additions to several frameworks as indicated, and used certain frameworks' components selectively. While these methods are time-intensive, and more work is needed to streamline them, they are among the first such methods presented to implementation science. As such, they may be used in research on assessing effective strategy modifications and for replication and scale-up of effective strategies. We present these methods to guide others seeking to document implementation strategies and modifications to their studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03607617 (first posted 31/07/2018).

A cluster randomized stepped-wedge trial to de-implement unnecessary post-operative antibiotics in children: the optimizing perioperative antibiotic in children (OPerAtiC) trial

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic-resistant infections have become a public health crisis that is driven by the inappropriate use of antibiotics. In the USA, antibiotic stewardship programs (ASP) have been established and are required by regulatory agencies to help combat the problem of antibiotic resistance. Post-operative antibiotic use in surgical cases deemed low-risk for infection is an area with significant overuse of antibiotics in children. Consensus among leading public health organizations has led to guidelines eliminating post-operative antibiotics in low-risk surgeries. However, the best strategies to de-implement these inappropriate antibiotics in this setting are unknown.

METHODS/DESIGN

A 3-year stepped wedge cluster randomized trial will be conducted at nine US Children's Hospitals to assess the impact of two de-implementation strategies, order set change and facilitation training, on inappropriate post-operative antibiotic prescribing in low risk (i.e., clean and clean-contaminated) surgical cases. The facilitation training will amplify order set changes and will involve a 2-day workshop with antibiotic stewardship teams. This training will be led by an implementation scientist expert (VRM) and a pediatric infectious diseases physician with antibiotic stewardship expertise (JGN). The primary clinical outcome will be the percentage of surgical cases receiving unnecessary post-operative antibiotics. Secondary clinical outcomes will include the rate of surgical site infections and the rate of Clostridioides difficile infections, a common negative consequence of antibiotic use. Monthly semi-structured interviews at each hospital will assess the implementation process of the two strategies. The primary implementation outcome is penetration, which will be defined as the number of order sets changed or developed by each hospital during the study. Additional implementation outcomes will include the ASP team members' assessment of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of each strategy while they are being implemented.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide important information on the impact of two potential strategies to de-implement unnecessary post-operative antibiotic use in children while assessing important clinical outcomes. As more unnecessary medical practices are identified, de-implementation strategies, including facilitation, need to be rigorously evaluated. Along with this study, other rigorously designed studies evaluating additional strategies are needed to further advance the burgeoning field of de-implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04366440. Registered April 28, 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04366440 .

Assessing Implementation Strategy Reporting in the Mental Health Literature: A Narrative Review

Inadequate implementation strategy reporting restricts research synthesis and replicability. We explored the implementation strategy reporting quality of a sample of mental health articles using Proctor et al.'s (Implement Sci 8:139, 2013) reporting recommendations. We conducted a narrative review to generate the sample of articles and assigned a reporting quality score to each article. The mean article reporting score was 54% (range 17-100%). The most reported domains were: name (100%), action (82%), target (80%), and actor (67%). The least reported domains included definition (6%), temporality (26%), justification (34%), and outcome (37%). We discuss limitations and provide recommendations to improve reporting.

Mapping hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes in the Gulf Cooperation Council states against international standards: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

While there is evidence of implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, there has been limited benchmarking and mapping to international standards and frameworks.

AIM

To critically appraise and synthesize the evidence of ASP implementation in GCC hospitals with reference to the framework of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), identifying key facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

A systematic review protocol was developed based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Protocols guidelines. Five electronic databases were searched for studies published in English from 2010 onwards. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. A narrative synthesis was conducted with ASP interventions mapped to CDC core elements.

FINDINGS

Seventeen studies were identified, most of which (N=11) were from Saudi Arabia. Mapping to the CDC framework identified key areas of strengths and weaknesses in reporting implementation. Studies more commonly reported core elements of pharmacy expertise, selected aspects of implementation actions, tracking, antibiotic use and resistance, and education. Little emphasis was placed on the reporting of leadership and accountability. Key implementation facilitators were physician and organization support, information systems and education, and barriers were dedicated staff, workload and funding.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to enhance the reporting of ASP implementation in GCC hospitals. The CDC framework should be used as a guide during the development, implementation and reporting of ASP interventions. Action is required to identify facilitators and overcome barriers, where possible.

Welcome to Implementation Science Communications

Implementation research in health is a rapidly growing field. Fourteen years after the launch of Implementation Science, submissions to the journal have grown exponentially, and the journal now uses a high bar for assessing submitted manuscripts. The field of implementation research in health, however, is growing largely through entry of junior researchers with keen interest in the field whose funding histories and research experience are still developing. We consider it essential to support newer entrants to the field and boundary-spanning work that may consist of smaller, pilot studies, as well as those that contribute primarily descriptive findings.

As a companion journal to Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications will accept a broad and diverse range of article types, and provide an important platform for smaller scale or more descriptive research. As with Implementation Science, no specific discipline, research design, or paradigm will be favoured.

Strategies to improve the implementation of healthy eating, physical activity and obesity prevention policies, practices or programmes within childcare services

BACKGROUND

Despite the existence of effective interventions and best-practice guideline recommendations for childcare services to implement evidence-based policies, practices and programmes to promote child healthy eating, physical activity and prevent unhealthy weight gain, many services fail to do so.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of the review was to examine the effectiveness of strategies aimed at improving the implementation of policies, practices or programmes by childcare services that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention. The secondary aims of the review were to: 1. Examine the cost or cost-effectiveness of such strategies; 2. Examine any adverse effects of such strategies on childcare services, service staff or children; 3. Examine the effect of such strategies on child diet, physical activity or weight status. 4. Describe the acceptability, adoption, penetration, sustainability and appropriateness of such implementation strategies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases on February 22 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL and SCOPUS for relevant studies. We searched reference lists of included studies, handsearched two international implementation science journals, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included any study (randomised or nonrandomised) with a parallel control group that compared any strategy to improve the implementation of a healthy eating, physical activity or obesity prevention policy, practice or programme by staff of centre-based childcare services to no intervention, 'usual' practice or an alternative strategy. Centre-based childcare services included preschools, nurseries, long daycare services and kindergartens catering for children prior to compulsory schooling (typically up to the age of five to six years).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened study titles and abstracts, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias; we resolved discrepancies via consensus. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model where studies with suitable data and homogeneity were identified; otherwise, findings were described narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies, including 16 randomised and five nonrandomised, were included in the review. The studies sought to improve the implementation of policies, practices or programmes targeting healthy eating (six studies), physical activity (three studies) or both healthy eating and physical activity (12 studies). Studies were conducted in the United States (n = 12), Australia (n = 8) and Ireland (n = 1). Collectively, the 21 studies included a total of 1945 childcare services examining a range of implementation strategies including educational materials, educational meetings, audit and feedback, opinion leaders, small incentives or grants, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, reminders and tailored interventions. Most studies (n = 19) examined implementation strategies versus usual practice or minimal support control, and two compared alternative implementation strategies. For implementation outcomes, six studies (one RCT) were judged to be at high risk of bias overall. The review findings suggest that implementation strategies probably improve the implementation of policies, practices or programmes that promote child healthy eating, physical activity and/or obesity prevention in childcare services. Of the 19 studies that compared a strategy to usual practice or minimal support control, 11 studies (nine RCTs) used score-based measures of implementation (e.g. childcare service nutrition environment score). Nine of these studies were included in pooled analysis, which found an improvement in implementation outcomes (SMD 0.49; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; participants = 495; moderate-certainty evidence). Ten studies (seven RCTs) used dichotomous measures of implementation (e.g. proportion of childcare services implementing a policy or specific practice), with seven of these included in pooled analysis (OR 1.83; 95% CI 0.81 to 4.11; participants = 391; low-certainty evidence). Findings suggest that such interventions probably lead to little or no difference in child physical activity (four RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) or weight status (three RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), and may lead to little or no difference in child diet (two RCTs; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the cost or cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Three studies assessed the adverse effects of the intervention on childcare service staff, children and parents, with all studies suggesting they have little to no difference in adverse effects (e.g. child injury) between groups (three RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Inconsistent quality of the evidence was identified across review outcomes and study designs, ranging from very low to moderate. The primary limitation of the review was the lack of conventional terminology in implementation science, which may have resulted in potentially relevant studies failing to be identified based on the search terms used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current research suggests that implementation strategies probably improve the implementation of policies, practices or programmes by childcare services, and may have little or no effect on measures of adverse effects. However such strategies appear to have little to no impact on measures of child diet, physical activity or weight status.

Designing an intervention to improve sexual health service use among university undergraduate students: a mixed methods study guided by the behaviour change wheel

Introduction

University undergraduate students are within the population at highest risk for acquiring sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancy, and other negative health outcomes. Despite the availability of sexual health services at university health centres, many students delay or avoid seeking care. In this study, we describe how the Behaviour Change Wheel was used as a systematic approach to design an intervention to improve sexual health service use among university undergraduate students.

Methods

This paper describes the intervention development phase of a three-phased, sequential explanatory mixed methods study. Phases one and two included a quantitative and qualitative study that aimed to better understand students’ use of sexual health services. In phase three, we followed the Behaviour Change Wheel to integrate the quantitative and qualitative findings and conduct stakeholder consultation meetings to select intervention strategies, including intervention functions and behaviour change techniques.

Results

Key linkages between opportunity and motivation were found to influence students’ access of sexual health services. Stakeholders identified six intervention functions (education, environmental restructuring, enablement, modelling, persuasion, and incentivization) and 15 behaviour change techniques (information about health consequences, information about social and environmental consequences, feedback on behaviour, feedback on outcomes of behaviour, prompts/cues, self-monitoring of behaviour, adding objects to the environment, goal setting, problem solving, action planning, restructuring the social environment, restructuring the physical environment, demonstration of the behaviour, social support, credible source) as relevant to include in a toolbox of intervention strategies to improve sexual health service use.

Conclusions

This study details the use of the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop an intervention aimed at improving university students’ use of sexual health services. The Behaviour Change Wheel provided a comprehensive framework for integrating multiple sources of data to inform the selection of intervention strategies. Stakeholders can use these strategies to design and implement sexual health service interventions that are feasible within the context of their health centre. Future research is needed to test the effectiveness of the strategies at changing university students’ sexual health behaviour.

Assessing Implementation Strategy Reporting in the Mental Health Literature: A Narrative Review

Inadequate implementation strategy reporting restricts research synthesis and replicability. We explored the implementation strategy reporting quality of a sample of mental health articles using Proctor et al.'s (Implement Sci 8:139, 2013) reporting recommendations. We conducted a narrative review to generate the sample of articles and assigned a reporting quality score to each article. The mean article reporting score was 54% (range 17-100%). The most reported domains were: name (100%), action (82%), target (80%), and actor (67%). The least reported domains included definition (6%), temporality (26%), justification (34%), and outcome (37%). We discuss limitations and provide recommendations to improve reporting.

Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications: our aims, scope, and reporting expectations

In the 13 years since the inception of Implementation Science, we have witnessed a continued rise in the number of submissions, reflecting the growing global interest in methods to enhance the uptake of research findings into healthcare practice and policy. We now receive over 800 submissions annually, and there is a large gap between what is submitted and what gets published. To better serve the needs of the research community, we announce our plans to introduce a new journal, Implementation Science Communications, which we believe will support publication of types of research reports currently not often published in Implementation Science. In this editorial, we state both journals' scope and current boundaries and set out our expectations for the scientific reporting, quality, and transparency of the manuscripts we receive.

Implementation Research as Applied Science: Bridging the Research to Practice Gap

Implementation research is intended to address challenges posed by the slow adoption of evidence-based science by the medical and health promotion practice community. A case study approach is used to illustrate and discuss the use of Quality improvement and Evaluation as an applied approach to implementation science in contrast of more classic purposes of research. Quality improvement was the implementation model used to facilitate organizational change needed to adopt the use of texting to report sexually transmitted infection test results in over a fifth of Florida's larger county health departments. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to evaluate implementation. All seven participating county health departments were successful in enrolling clients in texting with extensive variation (24% to 72%) in texting enrollment at the end of the 10-month study. Statistically significant outcomes for those enrolled in texting were recorded through Florida's online sexually transmitted infection reporting system in the form of increased number of people receiving early (1-4 days) treatment and reductions in delayed (≥8 days) or no treatment. This study illustrates an applied approach to implementation research which may be critical to adapt emerging evidence and technologies to the multiple and complex characteristics of the diverse populations served by health promotion institutions.

Implementing an initiative to promote evidence-informed practice: part 1 - a description of the Evidence Rounds programme

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed practice is fundamental to the delivery of high quality health care. Delays and gaps in the translation of research into practice can impact negatively on patient care. Previous studies have reported that problems facing health care professionals such as information overload, underdeveloped critical appraisal skills, lack of time and other individual, organisational and system-level contextual factors are barriers to the uptake of evidence. Health services research in this area has been restricted largely to the evaluation of program outcomes. This paper aims to describe the implementation process of an educational initiative for health care professionals working in midwifery, neonatology or obstetrics aimed at disseminating evidence and enhancing evidence-informed clinical care.

METHODS

We designed and implemented an educational initiative called Evidence Rounds for health care professionals working in the women and children's division of an urban hospital in Ireland. It consisted of three core components: (1) group educational sessions examining evidence on topics chosen by staff (2) a dedicated website and (3) facilitation, enablement and support from a knowledge translation professional. We evaluated user engagement in the educational program by monitoring attendance figures and website analytics. We followed up with staff at 3, 16 and 21-month intervals after the last educational session to find out whether evidence had been implemented. We use Lavis's organising framework for knowledge transfer and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to describe the educational program and document the implementation process.

RESULTS

Six educational sessions presented by 18 health care professionals took place over a nine month period with 148 attendances of which 85 were unique (individuals who attended at least one session). During the period spanning from one month before, during and one month after the running of the group sessions, 188 unique visitors, 331 visits and 862 page views were recorded on our website.

CONCLUSIONS

Audit and feedback processes can provide quantitative data to track practice outcomes. Achieving sustainable educational programs can be challenging without dedicated resources such as staffing and funding.

Implementation science and stigma reduction interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR).

RESULTS

A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven.

CONCLUSION

Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide.

A WHO-HPH operational program versus usual routines for implementing clinical health promotion: an RCT in health promoting hospitals (HPH)

BACKGROUND

Implementation of clinical health promotion (CHP) aiming at better health gain is slow despite its effect. CHP focuses on potentially modifiable lifestyle risks such as smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity. An operational program was created to improve implementation. It included patients, staff, and the organization, and it combined existing standards, indicators, documentation models, a performance recognition process, and a fast-track implementation model. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the operational program improved implementation of CHP in clinical hospital departments, as measured by health status of patients and staff, frequency of CHP service delivery, and standards compliance.

METHODS

Forty-eight hospital departments were recruited via open call and stratified by country. Departments were assigned to the operational program (intervention) or usual routine (control group). Data for analyses included 36 of these departments and their 5285 patients (median 147 per department; range 29-201), 2529 staff members (70; 10-393), 1750 medical records (50; 50-50), and standards compliance assessments. Follow-up was measured after 1 year. The outcomes were health status, service delivery, and standards compliance.

RESULTS

No health differences between groups were found, but the intervention group had higher identification of lifestyle risk (81% versus 60%, p < 0.01), related information/short intervention and intensive intervention (54% versus 39%, p < 0.01 and 43% versus 25%, p < 0.01, respectively), and standards compliance (95% versus 80%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The operational program improved implementation by way of lifestyle risk identification, CHP service delivery, and standards compliance. The unknown health effects, the bias, and the limitations should be considered in implementation efforts and further studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01563575. Registered 27 March 2012. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01563575.

Effectiveness of implementation strategies for the improvement of guideline and protocol adherence in emergency care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Guideline and protocol adherence in prehospital and in-hospital emergency departments (EDs) is suboptimal. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review was to identify effective strategies for improving guideline and protocol adherence in prehospital and ED settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (including MEDLINE), CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane.

METHODS

We selected (quasi) experimental studies published between 2004 and 2018 that used strategies to increase guideline and protocol adherence in prehospital and in-hospital emergency care. Pairs of two independent reviewers performed the selection process, quality assessment and data extraction.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included, nine of which were performed in the ED setting and two studies were performed in a combined prehospital and ED setting. For the ED setting, the studies indicated that educational strategies as sole intervention, and educational strategies in combination with audit and feedback, are probably effective in improving guideline adherence. Sole use of reminders in the ED setting also showed positive effects. The two studies in the combined prehospital and ED setting showed similar results for the sole use of educational interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review does not allow firm conclusion on how to promote guideline and protocol adherence in prehospital emergency care, or the combination of prehospital and ED care. For ED settings, the sole use of reminders or educational interventions and the use of multifaceted strategies of education combined with audit and feedback are all likely to be effective in improving guideline adherence.

Developing an implementation strategy for a digital health intervention: an example in routine healthcare

BACKGROUND

Evidence on how to implement new interventions into complex healthcare environments is often poorly reported and indexed, reducing its potential to inform initiatives to improve healthcare services. Using the implementation of a digital intervention within routine National Health Service (NHS) practice, we provide an example of how to develop a theoretically based implementation plan and how to report it transparently. In doing so we also highlight some of the challenges to implementation in routine healthcare.

METHODS

The implemented intervention was HeLP-Diabetes, a digital self-management programme for people with Type 2 Diabetes, which was effective in improving diabetes control. The target setting for the implementation was an inner city London Clinical Commissioning Group in the NHS comprised of 34 general practices. HeLP-Diabetes was designed to be offered to patients as part of routine diabetes care across England. Evidence synthesis, engagement of local stakeholders, a theory of implementation (Normalization Process Theory), feedback, qualitative interviews and usage data were used to develop an implementation plan.

RESULTS

A new implementation plan was developed to implement HeLP-Diabetes within routine practice. Individual component strategies were selected and developed informed by Normalization Process Theory. These strategies included: engagement of local opinion leaders, provision of educational materials, educational visits, educational meetings, audit and feedback and reminders. Additional strategies were introduced iteratively to address barriers that arose during the implementation. Barriers largely related to difficulties in allocating resources to implement the intervention within routine care.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides a worked example of implementing a digital health intervention. The learning from this work can inform others undertaking the work of planning and executing implementation activities in routine healthcare. Of particular importance is: the selection of appropriate theory to guide the implementation process and selection of strategies; ensuring that enough attention is paid to planning implementation; and a flexible approach that allows response to emerging barriers.

Strategies, facilitators and barriers to implementation of evidence-based practice in community nursing: a systematic mixed-studies review and qualitative synthesis

Aim

To appraise and synthesize empirical literature on implementation of evidence within community nursing. To explore the use of implementation theory and identify the strategies required for, and the barriers and facilitators to, successful implementation within this context.

Background

There is an international consensus that evidence-based practice can improve outcomes for people using health and social care services. However, these practices are not always translated into care delivery. Community nursing is a relatively understudied area; little is known about how innovations in practice are implemented within this setting.

Methods

Systematic mixed-studies review, synthesizing quantitative and qualitative research. The electronic databases AMED, PsycINFO, Ovid Medline, CINAHL Plus, ASSIA, British Nursing Index and EMBASE were used. Two grey literature databases were also searched: OpenGrey and EThOS. English language, peer-reviewed papers published between January 2010 and July 2017 were considered. Criteria included implementation of an innovation and change to practice within adult community nursing. An approach called Critical Interpretive Synthesis was used to integrate the evidence from across the studies into a comprehensible theoretical framework.

Results

In total, 22 papers were reviewed. Few studies discussed the use of theory when planning, guiding and evaluating the implementation of the innovation (n=6). A number of implementation strategies, facilitators and barriers were identified across the included studies, highlighting the interplay of both service context and individual factors in successful implementation.

Conclusion

Implementation is an expanding area of research; yet is challenged by a lack of consistency in terminology and limited use of theory. Implementation within community nursing is a complex process, requiring both individual and organizational adoption, and managerial support. Successful adoption of evidence-based practice however, is only possible if community nurses themselves deem it useful and there is evidence that it could have a positive impact on the patient and/or their primary carer.

What are the mechanisms that enable the reciprocal involvement of seldom heard groups in health and social care research? A rapid realist review protocol

Background: The University College Dublin (UCD) PPI Ignite Connect Network will fundamentally embed public and patient involvement (PPI) in health-related research, education and training, professional practice and administration in UCD’s institutional structures and procedures. A significant focus of the programme of work is on actively engaging and developing long-term reciprocal relationships with seldom heard groups, via our ten inaugural partners. Methods: This rapid realist review will explore what are the mechanisms that are important in actively engaging seldom heard groups in health and social care research.  The review process will follow five iterative steps: (1) clarify scope, (2) search for evidence, (3) appraise primary studies and extract data, (4) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions, and (5) disseminate findings. The reviewers will consult with expert and reference panels to focus the review, provide local contextual insights and develop a programme theory consisting of context–mechanism–outcome configurations. The expert panel will oversee the review process and agree, via consensus, the final programme theory. Review findings will follow the adopted RAMESES guideline and will be disseminated via a report, presentations and peer-reviewed publication. Discussion: The review will update and consolidate evidence on the mechanisms that enable the reciprocal engagement and participation of ‘seldom heard’ groups in health and social care research. Via the expert and reference process, we will draw from a sizeable body of published and unpublished research and grey literature. The local contextual insights provided will aid the development of our programme theories. This new evidence will inform the design and development of the UCD PPI Ignite program focused on ensuring sustained reciprocal partnerships.

Promoting assisted decision-making in acute care settings for care planning purposes: Study protocol

Background: The Assisted Decision-Making (ADM) (Capacity) Act 2015 was enacted by Dáil Éireann in December 2015. The purpose of the act, as it applies to healthcare, is to promote the autonomy of persons in relation to their treatment choices, to enable them to be treated according to their will and preferences, and to provide healthcare professionals with important information about persons and their choices in relation to treatment. In practice, those patients with cognitive impairment, particularly dementia, and those with complex needs requiring composite decisions present the greatest challenge to healthcare professionals practicing in accordance with this legislation. Patients with complex needs requiring multifaceted decisions are often over 70 years of age and present in acute hospitals experiencing some form of cognitive impairment. Objectives: The aim of this project is to develop an educational tool which will promote understanding of ADM among healthcare professionals working in acute care settings, and encourage their adoption of this understanding into their care planning with older people. Research design: The study design for this project is mapped out over four consecutive work packages combining a multimethod approach including rapid realist review, qualitative exploration, participatory learning and action sets and intervention trialling and revision. This incremental and context sensitive approach to research design is appropriate for the exploration, development and evaluation of a complex behaviour change intervention. Conclusion: The targeted beneficiaries of this project are healthcare professionals working within acute care settings as well as older people and their family carers who are interacting with the acute care system. The potential impact is improved communication between healthcare professionals and their patients in relation to assisted decision-making and care planning. This educational intervention will be embedded into the pedagogic strategies of the RCPI in their postgraduate education curricula as well as the continuous professional development scheme.

Getting messier with TIDieR: embracing context and complexity in intervention reporting

Background

The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide was developed by an international team of experts to promote full and accurate description of trial interventions. It is now widely used in health research. The aim of this paper is to describe the experience of using TIDieR outside of trials, in a range of applied health research contexts, and make recommendations on its usefulness in such settings.

Main body

We used the TIDieR template for intervention description in six applied health research projects. The six cases comprise a diverse sample in terms of clinical problems, population, settings, stage of intervention development and whether the intervention was led by researchers or the service deliverers. There was also variation in how the TIDieR description was produced in terms of contributors and time point in the project. Researchers involved in the six cases met in two workshops to identify issues and themes arising from their experience of using TIDieR.

We identified four themes which capture the difficulties or complexities of using TIDieR in applied health research: (i) fidelity and adaptation: all aspects of an intervention can change over time; (ii) voice: the importance of clarity on whose voice the TIDieR description represents; (iii) communication beyond the immediate context: the usefulness of TIDieR for wider dissemination and sharing; (iv) the use of TIDieR as a research tool.

Conclusion

We found TIDieR to be a useful tool for applied research outside the context of clinical trials and we suggest four revisions or additions to the original TIDieR which would enable it to better capture these complexities in applied health research:

An additional item, ‘voice’ conveys who was involved in preparing the TIDieR template, such as researchers, service users or service deliverers.

An additional item, ‘stage of implementation’ conveys what stage the intervention has reached, using a continuum of implementation research suggested by the World Health Organisation.

A new column, ‘modification’ reminds authors to describe modifications to any item in the checklist.

An extension of the ‘how well’ item encourages researchers to describe how contextual factors affected intervention delivery.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0461-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effective strategies for scaling up evidence-based practices in primary care: a systematic review

Background

While an extensive array of existing evidence-based practices (EBPs) have the potential to improve patient outcomes, little is known about how to implement EBPs on a larger scale. Therefore, we sought to identify effective strategies for scaling up EBPs in primary care.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review with the following inclusion criteria: (i) study design: randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, before-and-after (with/without control), and interrupted time series; (ii) participants: primary care-related units (e.g., clinical sites, patients); (iii) intervention: any strategy used to scale up an EBP; (iv) comparator: no restrictions; and (v) outcomes: no restrictions. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to August 2016 and consulted clinical trial registries and gray literature. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies, then extracted and analyzed data following the Cochrane methodology. We extracted components of scaling-up strategies and classified them into five categories: infrastructure, policy/regulation, financial, human resources-related, and patient involvement. We extracted scaling-up process outcomes, such as coverage, and provider/patient outcomes. We validated data extraction with study authors.

Results

We included 14 studies. They were published since 2003 and primarily conducted in low-/middle-income countries (n = 11). Most were funded by governmental organizations (n = 8). The clinical area most represented was infectious diseases (HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, n = 8), followed by newborn/child care (n = 4), depression (n = 1), and preventing seniors’ falls (n = 1). Study designs were mostly before-and-after (without control, n = 8). The most frequently targeted unit of scaling up was the clinical site (n = 11). The component of a scaling-up strategy most frequently mentioned was human resource-related (n = 12). All studies reported patient/provider outcomes. Three studies reported scaling-up coverage, but no study quantitatively reported achieving a coverage of 80% in combination with a favorable impact.

Conclusions

We found few studies assessing strategies for scaling up EBPs in primary care settings. It is uncertain whether any strategies were effective as most studies focused more on patient/provider outcomes and less on scaling-up process outcomes. Minimal consensus on the metrics of scaling up are needed for assessing the scaling up of EBPs in primary care.

Trial registration

This review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041461.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0672-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Implementation outcome assessment instruments used in physical healthcare settings and their measurement properties: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 10 years, research into methods that promote the uptake, implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions has gathered pace. However, implementation outcomes are defined in different ways and assessed by different measures; the extent to which these measures are valid and reliable is unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings, to advance the use of precise and accurate measures.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The following databases will be searched from inception to March 2017: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be sought via HMIC, OpenGrey, ProQuest for theses and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews will be hand searched. Three search strings will be combined to identify eligible studies: (1) implementation literature, (2) implementation outcomes and (3) measurement properties. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently and any discrepancies resolved via consensus with the wider team. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. A set of bespoke criteria to determine the quality of the instruments will be used, and the relationship between instrument usability and quality will be explored.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. Researchers and healthcare professionals can use the findings of this systematic review to guide the selection of implementation outcomes instruments, based on their psychometric quality, to assess the impact of their implementation efforts. The findings will also provide a useful guide for reviewers of papers and grants to determine the psychometric quality of the measures used in implementation research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42017065348.