The decision sampling framework: a methodological approach to investigate evidence use in policy and programmatic innovation

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.

Understanding tailoring to support the implementation of evidence-based interventions in healthcare: The CUSTOMISE research programme protocol

Although there are effective evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to prevent, treat and coordinate care for chronic conditions they may not be adopted widely and when adopted, implementation challenges can limit their impact.  Implementation strategies are "methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of a clinical program or practice". There is some evidence to suggest that to be more effective,  strategies should be tailored; that is, selected and designed to address specific determinants which may influence implementation in a given context. Despite the growing popularity of tailoring the concept is ill-defined, and the way in which tailoring is applied can vary across studies or lack detail when reported. There has been less focus on the part of tailoring where stakeholders prioritise determinants and select strategies, and the way in which theory, evidence and stakeholders' perspectives should be combined to make decisions during the process. Typically, tailoring is evaluated based on the effectiveness of the tailored strategy, we do not have a clear sense of the mechanisms through which tailoring works, or how to measure the "success" of the tailoring process. We lack an understanding of how stakeholders can be involved effectively in tailoring and the influence of different approaches on the outcome of tailoring. Our research programme, CUSTOMISE (Comparing and Understanding Tailoring Methods for Implementation Strategies in healthcare) will address some of these outstanding questions and generate evidence on  the feasibility, acceptability, and efficiency of different tailoring approaches, and build capacity in implementation science in Ireland, developing and delivering training and supports for, and network of, researchers and implementation practitioners. The evidence generated across the studies conducted as part of CUSTOMISE will bring greater clarity, consistency, coherence, and transparency to tailoring, a key process in implementation science.

Improving paediatric antimicrobial stewardship in remote and regional Queensland hospitals: development and qualitative evaluation of a tailored intervention for intravenous-to-oral antibiotic switching

OBJECTIVES

Timely intravenous-to-oral antibiotic switching for children is important for paediatric antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). However, low decision-making confidence and fragmentation of patient care can hamper implementation, with difficulties heightened regionally where AMS programmes for children are lacking. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate user-led creation and implementation of an intervention package for early intravenous-to-oral switching at regional hospitals in Queensland, Australia.

DESIGN

Guided by theory, a four-phase approach was used to: (1) develop multifaceted intervention materials; (2) review materials and their usage through stakeholders; (3) adapt materials based on user-feedback and (4) qualitatively evaluate health workers experiences at 6 months postintervention.

SETTING

Seven regional hospitals in Queensland, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Phase 2 included 15 stakeholders; health workers and patient representatives (patient-guardians and Indigenous liaison officers). Phase 4 included 20 health workers across the seven intervention sites.

RESULTS

Content analysis of health worker and parent/guardian reviews identified the 'perceived utility of materials' and 'possible barriers to use'. 'Recommendations and strategies for improvement' provided adjustments for the materials that were able to be tailored to individual practice. Postintervention interviews generated three overarching themes that combined facilitators and barriers to switching: (1) application of materials, (2) education and support, and (3) team dynamics. Overall, despite difficulties with turnover and problems with the medical hierarchy, interventions aided and empowered antibiotic therapy decision-making and enhanced education and self-reflection.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite structural barriers to AMS for switching from intravenous-to-oral antibiotics in paediatric patients, offering a tailored multifaceted intervention was reported to provide support and confidence to adjust practice across a diverse set of health workers in regional areas. Future AMS activities should be guided by users and provide opportunities for tailoring tools to practice setting and patients' requirements.

Rapid-cycle systems modeling to support evidence-informed decision-making during system-wide implementation

Background

To “model and simulate change” is an accepted strategy to support implementation at scale. Much like a power analysis can inform decisions about study design, simulation models offer an analytic strategy to synthesize evidence that informs decisions regarding implementation of evidence-based interventions. However, simulation modeling is under-utilized in implementation science. To realize the potential of simulation modeling as an implementation strategy, additional methods are required to assist stakeholders to use models to examine underlying assumptions, consider alternative strategies, and anticipate downstream consequences of implementation. To this end, we propose Rapid-cycle Systems Modeling (RCSM)—a form of group modeling designed to promote engagement with evidence to support implementation. To demonstrate its utility, we provide an illustrative case study with mid-level administrators developing system-wide interventions that aim to identify and treat trauma among children entering foster care.

Methods

RCSM is an iterative method that includes three steps per cycle: (1) identify and prioritize stakeholder questions, (2) develop or refine a simulation model, and (3) engage in dialogue regarding model relevance, insights, and utility for implementation. For the case study, 31 key informants were engaged in step 1, a prior simulation model was adapted for step 2, and six member-checking group interviews (n = 16) were conducted for step 3.

Results

Step 1 engaged qualitative methods to identify and prioritize stakeholder questions, specifically identifying a set of inter-related decisions to promote implementing trauma-informed screening. In step 2, the research team created a presentation to communicate key findings from the simulation model that addressed decisions about programmatic reach, optimal screening thresholds to balance demand for treatment with supply, capacity to start-up and sustain screening, and availability of downstream capacity to provide treatment for those with indicated need. In step 3, member-checking group interviews with stakeholders documented the relevance of the model results to implementation decisions, insight regarding opportunities to improve system performance, and potential to inform conversations regarding anticipated implications of implementation choices.

Conclusions

By embedding simulation modeling in a process of stakeholder engagement, RCSM offers guidance to realize the potential of modeling not only as an analytic strategy, but also as an implementation strategy.

Applying a scoping review approach for identifying effective implementation strategies in oral health settings

Dental service providers have limited capacity to identify strategies to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). We developed a rigorous yet parsimonious scoping review approach to identify, select, and rate implementation strategies based on an oral health system context. From 153 strategies identified, we selected the top 11 strategies, which had a moderate level of support of evidence and where managers were the main actors. The main actions were to educate, remind, structure, and influence. Targets included dentists, dental hygienists, and assistants and managers from a large prepaid dental care delivery system. This approach responds to calls for rapid and innovative methods to implement EBPs in oral health.