Testing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research on health care innovations from South Yorkshire

Your Teeth, You Are in Control: A Process Evaluation of the Implementation of a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Intervention for Reducing Child Dental Anxiety

AIM

To explore the views of patients, caregivers, and dental professionals on the factors that influence implementation, processes, and effectiveness of a guided self-help cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) intervention, 'Your teeth, you are in control' (YTYAIC), in the CALM trial.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of this qualitative component of the process evaluation, and data were analysed using a framework approach based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Five Areas Model of CBT.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven participants were recruited. Potential mechanisms of action were identified using the Five Areas Model of CBT. Participants felt the intervention may exert change through targeting unhelpful thoughts and feelings (e.g., building trust and perceptions of control) and behaviours (e.g., encouraging effective communication and coping strategies) and facilitating a more positive situational context (e.g., developing more supportive relationships). Enablers (e.g., adaptability, design and delivery) and barriers (e.g., time/resource constraints, cost) to implementation were identified using the CFIR.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed multiple potential mechanisms of action which could reduce dental anxiety and examined how implementation and contextual factors may influence this change process. The results of the research revealed that the intervention could be implemented in primary dental care and identified the potential barriers which should be addressed to aid successful implementation of the intervention in real world contexts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This clinical trial has been registered with an international registry and has been allocated an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN27579420).

Developing a model for primary care quality improvement success: a comparative case study in rural, urban and Kaupapa Māori organisations

Introduction Primary care is under pressure to achieve accessible, equitable, quality health care, while being increasingly under resourced. There is a need to understand factors that influence quality improvement (QI) to support a high-performing primary care system. Literature highlights the impact of context on QI but there is little primary care research on this topic. Aim This qualitative case study research seeks to discover the contextual factors influencing QI in primary care, and how the relationships between contextual factors, the QI initiative, and the implementation process influence outcomes. Methods The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to frame this qualitative study exploring primary care experiences in depth. Six sites were selected to provide a sample of rural, urban and Kaupapa Māori settings. Qualitative data was collected via semi-structured interviews and compared and contrasted with the organisational documents and data provided by participants. Results Cases reported success in achieving improved outcomes for patients, practices, and staff. Strong internal cultures of 'Clan' and 'Adhocracy' typologies supported teamwork, distributed leadership, and a learning climate to facilitate iterative sensemaking activities. To varying degrees, external network relationships provided resources, knowledge, and support. Discussion Organisations were motivated by a combination of patient/community need and organisational culture. Network relationships assisted to varying degrees depending on need. Engaged and distributed leadership based on teamwork was observed, where leadership was shared and emerged at different levels and times as the need arose. A learning climate was supported to enable iterative sensemaking activities to achieve success.

Anticipated benefits and challenges of implementing group care in Suriname's maternity and child care sector: a contextual analysis

BACKGROUND

Suriname is a uppermiddle-income country with a relatively high prevalence of preventable pregnancy complications. Access to and usage of high-quality maternity care services are lacking. The implementation of group care (GC) may yield maternal and child health improvements. However, before introducing a complex intervention it is pivotal to develop an understanding of the local context to inform the implementation process.

METHODS

A context analysis was conducted to identify local needs toward maternity and postnatal care services, and to assess contextual factor relevant to implementability of GC. During a Rapid Qualitative Inquiry, 63 online and face-to-face semi-structured interviews were held with parents, community members, on-and off-site healthcare professionals, policy makers, and one focus group with parents was conducted. Audio recordings were transcribed in verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis and Framework Method. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research served as a base for the coding tree, which was complemented with inductively derived codes.

RESULTS

Ten themes related to implementability, one theme related to sustainability, and seven themes related to reaching and participation of the target population in GC were identified. Factors related to health care professionals (e.g., workload, compatibility, ownership, role clarity), to GC, to recipients and to planning impact the implementability of GC, while sustainability is in particular hampered by sparse financial and human resources. Reach affects both implementability and sustainability. Yet, outer setting and attitudinal barriers of health professionals will likely affect reach.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-layered contextual factors impact not only implementability and sustainability of GC, but also reach of parents. We advise future researchers and implementors of GC to investigate not only determinants for implementability and sustainability, but also those factors that may hamper, or facilitate up-take. Practical, attitudinal and cultural barriers to GC participation need to be examined. Themes identified in this study will inspire the development of adaptations and implementation strategies at a later stage.

Assessing the implementation of nurse practitioner-led huddles in long-term care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic created major challenges in long-term care (LTC) homes across Canada and globally. A nurse practitioner-led interdisciplinary huddle intervention was developed to support staff wellbeing in two LTC homes in Ontario, Canada. The objective of this study was to identify the constructs strongly influencing the process of implementation of huddles across both sites, capturing the overall barriers and facilitators and the intervention's intrinsic properties.

METHODS

Nineteen participants were interviewed about their experiences, pre-, post-, and during huddle implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide data collection and analysis. CFIR rating rules and a cross-comparison analysis was used to identify differentiating factors between sites. A novel extension to the CFIR analysis process was designed to assess commonly influential factors across both sites.

RESULTS

Nineteen of twenty selected CFIR constructs were coded in interviews from both sites. Five constructs were determined to be strongly influential across both implementation sites and a detailed description is provided: evidence strength and quality; needs and resources of those served by the organization; leadership engagement; relative priority; and champions. A summary of ratings and an illustrative quote are provided for each construct.

CONCLUSION

Successful huddles require long-term care leaders to consider their involvement, the inclusion all team members to help build relationships and foster cohesion, and the integration of nurse practitioners as full-time staff members within LTC homes to support staff and facilitate initiatives for wellbeing. This research provides an example of a novel approach using the CFIR methodology, extending its use to identify significant factors for implementation when it is not possible to compare differences in success.

Using formative evaluation of a community-based opioid overdose prevention program to inform strategic communication for adoption, implementation, and sustainability

BACKGROUND

Opioid addiction and overdose is a public health problem in the United States and is expected to remain with substance use increasing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Communities that approach this issue through multi-sector partnerships experience more positive health outcomes. Understanding motivation for stakeholder engagement in these efforts is essential to successful adoption, implementation, and sustainability particularly in the shifting landscape of needs and resources.

METHODS

A formative evaluation was conducted on the C.L.E.A.R. Program in Massachusetts, a state heavily impacted by the opioid epidemic. A stakeholder power analysis identified appropriate stakeholders for the study (n = 9). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided data collection and analysis. Surveys (n = 8) examined perception and attitudes on the program; motivations and communication for engagement; and, benefits and barriers to collaboration. Stakeholder interviews (n = 6) explored the quantitative findings in more detail. Surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a content analysis with deductive approach was conducted for stakeholder interviews. The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory guided recommendations for communications to engage stakeholders.

RESULTS

Agencies represented a range of sectors and the majority (n = 5) were familiar with the C.L.E.A.R.

PROGRAM

Despite the many strengths of the program and existing collaboration, based on the coding densities of each CFIR construct stakeholders identified crucial gaps in the services the program provided and noted that the overall infrastructure of the program could be enhanced. Opportunities for strategic communication to address the stages of DOI align with the gaps identified in the CFIR domains to result in increased agency collaboration and expansion of services into the surrounding communities to ensure sustainability of the C.L.E.A.R.

PROGRAM

CONCLUSIONS

This study explored factors necessary for ongoing multi-sector collaboration and sustainability of an existing community-based program especially given the changing context from COVID-19. Findings informed both program revisions and communication strategies to promote the program to new and existing collaborating agencies and the community served, and identify effective communication approaches across sectors. This is essential for successful implementation and sustainability of the program, especially as it is adapted and expanded to address post-pandemic times.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study does not report results of a health care intervention on human participants, however it was reviewed and determined an exempt study with the Boston University Institutional Review Board (IRB #H-42107).

Sustaining improvement of hospital-wide initiative for patient safety and quality: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Long-term sustained improvement following implementation of hospital-wide quality and safety initiatives is not easily achieved. Comprehensive theoretical and practical understanding of how gained improvements can be sustained to benefit safe and high-quality care is needed. This review aimed to identify enabling and hindering factors and their contributions to improvement sustainability from hospital-wide change to enhance patient safety and quality.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review method was used. Searched were peer-reviewed published records on PubMed, Scopus, World of Science, CINAHL, Health Business Elite, Health Policy Reference Centre and Cochrane Library and grey literature. Review inclusion criteria included contemporary (2010 and onwards), empirical factors to improvement sustainability evaluated after the active implementation, hospital(s) based in the western Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Numerical and thematic analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

17 peer-reviewed papers were reviewed. Improvement and implementation approaches were predominantly adopted to guide change. Less than 6 in 10 (53%) of reviewed papers included a guiding framework/model, none with a demonstrated focus on improvement sustainability. With an evaluation time point of 4.3 years on average, 62 factors to improvement sustainability were identified and emerged into three overarching themes: People, Process and Organisational Environment. These entailed, as subthemes, actors and their roles; planning, execution and maintenance of change; and internal contexts that enabled sustainability. Well-coordinated change delivery, customised local integration and continued change effort were three most critical elements. Mechanisms between identified factors emerged in the forms of Influence and Action towards sustained improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings map contemporary empirical factors and their mechanisms towards change sustainability from a hospital-wide initiative to improve patient safety and quality. The identified factors and mechanisms extend current theoretical and empirical knowledgebases of sustaining improvement particularly with those beyond the active implementation. The provided conceptual framework offers an empirically evidenced and actionable guide to assist sustainable organisational change in hospital settings.

Implementation beyond the clinic: Community-driven utilization of research evidence from PC CARES, a suicide prevention program

While implementation and dissemination of research is a rapidly growing area, critical questions remain about how, why, and under what conditions everyday people integrate and utilize research evidence. This mixed-methods study investigates how participants of Promoting Community Conversations About Research to End Suicide (PC CARES) make sense of and use research evidence about suicide prevention in their own lives. PC CARES is a health intervention addressing the need for culturally responsive suicide prevention practices in rural Alaska through a series of community Learning Circles. We analyzed PC CARES transcripts and surveys for 376 participants aged 15+ across 10 Northwest Alaska Native villages. Quantitative analysis showed significant correlations between five utilization of research evidence (URE) factors and participants' intent to use research evidence from PC CARES Learning Circles. Key qualitative themes from Learning Circle transcripts expanded upon these URE constructs and included navigating discordant information, centering relationships, and Indigenous worldviews as key to interpreting research evidence. We integrate and organize our findings to inform two domains from the Consolidated Framework for Research Implementation: (1) intervention characteristics and (2) characteristics of individuals, with emphasis on findings most relevant for community settings where self-determined, evidence-informed action is especially important for addressing health inequities.

The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback

BACKGROUND

Many implementation efforts fail, even with highly developed plans for execution, because contextual factors can be powerful forces working against implementation in the real world. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is one of the most commonly used determinant frameworks to assess these contextual factors; however, it has been over 10 years since publication and there is a need for updates. The purpose of this project was to elicit feedback from experienced CFIR users to inform updates to the framework.

METHODS

User feedback was obtained from two sources: (1) a literature review with a systematic search; and (2) a survey of authors who used the CFIR in a published study. Data were combined across both sources and reviewed to identify themes; a consensus approach was used to finalize all CFIR updates. The VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System IRB declared this study exempt from the requirements of 38 CFR 16 based on category 2.

RESULTS

The systematic search yielded 376 articles that contained the CFIR in the title and/or abstract and 334 unique authors with contact information; 59 articles included feedback on the CFIR. Forty percent (n = 134/334) of authors completed the survey. The CFIR received positive ratings on most framework sensibility items (e.g., applicability, usability), but respondents also provided recommendations for changes. Overall, updates to the CFIR include revisions to existing domains and constructs as well as the addition, removal, or relocation of constructs. These changes address important critiques of the CFIR, including better centering innovation recipients and adding determinants to equity in implementation.

CONCLUSION

The updates in the CFIR reflect feedback from a growing community of CFIR users. Although there are many updates, constructs can be mapped back to the original CFIR to ensure longitudinal consistency. We encourage users to continue critiquing the CFIR, facilitating the evolution of the framework as implementation science advances.

Contextual antecedents of quality improvement: a comparative case study in rural, urban and Kaupapa Māori general practice

Introduction The impact of contextual factors on primary health-care quality improvement is significant. In-depth research is required to identify the key contextual factors that influence quality improvement initiatives to develop high-performing primary health-care systems. Aim This research seeks to answer two questions; what are the contextual factors influencing primary care improvement initiatives?; and how do contextual factors, the quality improvement initiative and the implementation process influence one another and the overall improvement outcomes? Methods A multi-case study methodology was used to explore the complexities of the phenomena in situ . Three sites where successful quality improvement had occurred were selected by purposeful theoretical sampling to provide a sample of rural, urban and Kaupapa Māori general practice settings typical of the New Zealand environment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with team members and triangulated with secondary data provided by the organisations. Results The quality improvement topic and the approach taken were intrinsically linked to context. Sites reported success in achieving the desired outcomes benefitting the patients, practice and staff. Teams did not use formal improvement methods, instead relying on established relationships and elements of change management methods. The culture in all three cases was a large component of why and how these initiatives were successful. Discussion Intrinsic motivation was generated by community connections and networks. This combined with a learning climate generated by distributed leadership and teamwork enabled success. Iterative reflection and sensemaking processes were able to deliver quality improvement success in primary care without the use of formal improvement methods.

Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool ('CRISP') to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy.

METHODS

Qualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a 'laboratory', we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended.

RESULTS

Between December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) 'characteristics of the intervention': CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) 'inner setting': the practice was open to changing systems; 3. 'outer setting': CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) 'individual characteristics': the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) 'processes': fidelity checking, and education was important.

CONCLUSIONS

These results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools.

Integrating the complexity of healthcare improvement with implementation science: a longitudinal qualitative case study

Background

Implementation science seeks to enable change, underpinned by theories and frameworks such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Yet academia and frontline healthcare improvement remain largely siloed, with limited integration of implementation science methods into frontline improvement where the drivers include pragmatic, rapid change. Using the CIFR lens, we aimed to explore how pragmatic and complex healthcare improvement and implementation science can be integrated.

Methods

Our research involved the investigation of a case study that was undertaking the implementation of an improvement intervention at a large public health service. Our research involved qualitative data collection methods of semi-structured interviews and non-participant observations of the implementation team delivering the intervention. Thematic analysis identified key themes from the qualitative data. We examined our themes through the lens of CFIR to gain in-depth understanding of how the CFIR components operated in a ‘real-world’ context.

Results

The key themes emerging from our research outlined that leadership, context and process are the key components that dominate and affect the implementation process. Leadership which cultivates connections with front line clinicians, fosters engagement and trust. Navigating context was facilitated by ‘bottom-up’ governance. Multi-disciplinary and cross-sector capability were key processes that supported pragmatic and agile responses in a changing complex environment. Process reflected the theoretically-informed, and iterative implementation approach. Mapping CFIR domains and constructs, with these themes demonstrated close alignment with the CFIR. The findings bring further depth to CFIR. Our research demonstrates that leadership which has a focus on patient need as a key motivator to engage clinicians, which applies and ensures iterative processes which leverage contextual factors can achieve successful, sustained implementation and healthcare improvement outcomes.

Conclusions

Our longitudinal study highlights insights that strengthen alignment between implementation science and pragmatic frontline healthcare improvement. We identify opportunities to enhance the relevance of CFIR in the ‘real-world’ setting through the interconnected nature of our themes. Our study demonstrates actionable knowledge to enhance the integration of implementation science in healthcare improvement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07505-5.

Conceptualizing outcomes for use with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): the CFIR Outcomes Addendum

BACKGROUND

The challenges of implementing evidence-based innovations (EBIs) are widely recognized among practitioners and researchers. Context, broadly defined as everything outside the EBI, includes the dynamic and diverse array of forces working for or against implementation efforts. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is one of the most widely used frameworks to guide assessment of contextual determinants of implementation. The original 2009 article invited critique in recognition for the need for the framework to evolve. As implementation science has matured, gaps in the CFIR have been identified and updates are needed. Our team is developing the CFIR 2.0 based on a literature review and follow-up survey with authors. We propose an Outcomes Addendum to the CFIR to address recommendations from these sources to include outcomes in the framework.

MAIN TEXT

We conducted a literature review and surveyed corresponding authors of included articles to identify recommendations for the CFIR. There were recommendations to add both implementation and innovation outcomes from these sources. Based on these recommendations, we make conceptual distinctions between (1) anticipated implementation outcomes and actual implementation outcomes, (2) implementation outcomes and innovation outcomes, and (3) CFIR-based implementation determinants and innovation determinants.

CONCLUSION

An Outcomes Addendum to the CFIR is proposed. Our goal is to offer clear conceptual distinctions between types of outcomes for use with the CFIR, and perhaps other determinant implementation frameworks as well. These distinctions can help bring clarity as researchers consider which outcomes are most appropriate to evaluate in their research. We hope that sharing this in advance will generate feedback and debate about the merits of our proposed addendum.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Model: Findings from a between-site qualitative assessment of implementation strategies

Introduction

A multitude of HRSN interventions are undergoing testing in the U.S., with the CMS Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Model as the largest. HRSN interventions typically include screening for social needs, referral to community resources, and patient navigation to ensure needs are met. There is currently a paucity of evidence on implementation of HRSN interventions. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a determinant framework widely used to plan and assess implementation. To the authors knowledge, there are no published studies assessing CFIR constructs for HRSN intervention implementation in the U.S. In the Assessment step of the Strengthening Peer AHC Navigation (SPAN) model, a between-site qualitative assessment methodology was used to examine implementation within and between AHC bridge organizations (BOs) within six ERIC implementation strategies identified by the authors based on AHC Model requirements.

Objective

Our aim was to identify and present between-site barriers and facilitators to AHC Model implementation strategies.

Design

A multi-site qualitative analysis methodology was used. CFIR determinants were linked to six Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies: staff training, identify and prepare champions, facilitation, community resource engagement (alignment through advisory boards and working groups), data systems, and quality monitoring and assurance. Interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis in NVivo 12 (QSR International).

Setting

Five health-related bridge organizations participating in the AHC Model.

Results

Fifty-eight interviews were completed with 34 staff and 24 patients or patient proxies. Facilitators were identified across five of the six ERIC strategies. Barriers were identified across all six. While organizations found the AHC Model compatible and facilitators to implementation included previous experience, meeting patient needs and resources, and leadership engagement and support, a number of barriers presented challenges to implementation. Issues with adequate staff training, staff skills to resolve HRSN, including patient communication and boundary spanning, setting staff goals, beneficiary caseloads and measurement of progress, data infrastructure (including EHR), available resources to implement and differences in perceptions between clinical delivery site (CDS), and CSP of how to measure and resolve HRSN.

Conclusions and relevance

The conduct of a pre-implementation readiness assessment benefited from identifying CFIR determinants linked to various ERIC implementation strategies.

Addressing the transition to a chronic condition: exploring independent adoption of self-management by patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis

Objective

Improvements in care have led to the recognition of ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) as a chronic condition; however, the self-management strategies considered a crucial component of the care model for patients with more prevalent chronic conditions are yet to be integrated formally into the treatment of AAV patients. The aim of the work we present here is to identify those self-management processes and tasks already being adopted by patients with AAV to help inform existing care and the development of a structured self-management programme.

Methods

We conducted a series of focus groups and semi-structured interviews with AAV patients, collating the data and performing a post hoc deductive analysis based on a consolidated framework of self-management processes.

Results

Despite the unique attributes and demands of AAV, patients adopted self-management behaviours previously identified and supported in patients with more prevalent chronic diseases. They accessed information on their disease proactively and learnt to mitigate their symptoms and side-effects. They pursued a range of health-promotion activities and accessed support from their social network and beyond and, ultimately, learnt to integrate the condition into their everyday life.

Conclusion

Our work has highlighted some key areas of self-management that might be addressed usefully and immediately, including the provision of more consistent information relating to evolving symptoms and side-effects, additional support in accessing both appropriate care and community-based resources, and the use of interventions to bolster resilience. Our findings will inform the development of a tailored self-management programme, but in the meantime provide a more contemporary context for current clinician-patient conversations.

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to design and implement a perinatal education program in a large maternity hospital

BACKGROUND

Implementation science aims to embed evidence-based practice as 'usual care' using theoretical underpinnings to guide these processes. Conceptualising the complementary purpose and application of theoretical approaches through all stages of an implementation project is not well understood and is not routinely reported in implementation research, despite call for this. This paper presents the synthesis and a collective approach to application of a co-design model, a model for understanding need, theories of behaviour change with frameworks and tools to guide implementation and evaluation brought together with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHOD

Using a determinant framework such as the CFIR provides a lens for understanding, influencing, and explaining the complex and multidimensional variables at play within a health service that contribute to planning for and delivering effective patient care. Complementary theories, models, frameworks, and tools support the research process by providing a theoretical and practical structure to understanding the local context and guiding successful local implementation.

RESULTS

This paper provides a rationale for conceptualising the multidimensional approach for implementation using the worked example of a pregnancy, birth, postnatal and early parenting education intervention for expectant and new parents at a large maternity hospital.

CONCLUSION

This multidimensional theoretical approach provides useful, practical guidance to health service researchers and clinicians to develop project specific rationale for their theoretical approach to implementation projects.

Identifying actionable strategies: using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Many evidence-based interventions (EBIs) found to be effective in research studies often fail to translate into meaningful patient outcomes in practice. The purpose of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers that affect the implementation of three EBIs to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in an urban federally qualified health center (FQHC) and offer actionable recommendations to improve future implementation efforts.

METHODS

We conducted 16 semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to describe diverse stakeholders' implementation experience. The interviews were conducted in the participant's clinic, audio-taped, and professionally transcribed for analysis.

RESULTS

We used the five CFIR domains and 39 constructs and subconstructs as a coding template to conduct a template analysis. Based on experiences with the implementation of three EBIs, stakeholders described barriers and facilitators related to the intervention characteristics, outer setting, and inner setting. Implementation barriers included (1) perceived burden and provider fatigue with EHR (Electronic Health Record) provider reminders, (2) unreliable and ineffectual EHR provider reminders, (3) challenges to providing health care services to diverse patient populations, (4) lack of awareness about CRC screening among patients, (5) absence of CRC screening goals, (6) poor communication on goals and performance, and (7) absence of printed materials for frontline implementers to educate patients. Implementation facilitators included (1) quarterly provider assessment and feedback reports provided real-time data to motivate change, (2) integration with workflow processes, (3) pressure from funding requirement to report quality measures, (4) peer pressure to achieve high performance, and (5) a culture of teamwork and patient-centered mentality.

CONCLUSIONS

The CFIR can be used to conduct a post-implementation formative evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators that influenced the implementation. Furthermore, the CFIR can provide a template to organize research data and synthesize findings. With its clear terminology and meta-theoretical framework, the CFIR has the potential to promote knowledge-building for implementation. By identifying the contextual determinants, we can then determine implementation strategies to facilitate adoption and move EBIs to daily practice.

A comparative assessment of two tools designed to support patient safety culture in UK general practice

BACKGROUND

The NHS has recognised the importance of a high quality patient safety culture in the delivery of primary health care in the rapidly evolving environment of general practice. Two tools, PC-SafeQuest and MapSaf, were developed with the intention of assessing and improving patient safety culture in this setting. Both have been made widely available through their inclusion in the Royal College of General Practitioners' Patient Safety Toolkit and our work offerss a timely exploration of the tools to inform practice staff as to how each might be usefully applied and in which circumstances. Here we present a comparative analysis of their content, and describe the perspectives of staff on their design, outputs and the feasibility of their sustained use.

METHODS

We have used a content analysis to provide the context for the qualitative study of staff experiences of using the tools at a representative range of practices recruited from across the Midlands (UK). Data was collected through moderated focus groups using an identical topic guide.

RESULTS

A total of nine practices used the PC-SafeQuest tool and four the MapSaf tool. A total of 159 staff completed the PC-SafeQuest tool 52 of whom took part in the subsequent focus group discussions, and 25 staff completed the MapSaf tool all of whom contributed to the focus group discussions. PC-SafeQuest was perceived as quick and easy to use with direct questions pertinent to the work of GP practices providing useful quantitative insight into important areas of safety culture. Though MaPSaF was more logistically challenging, it created a forum for synchronous cross- practice discussions raising awareness of perceptions of safety culture across the practice team.

CONCLUSIONS

Both tools were able to promote reflective and reflexive practice either in individual staff members or across the broader practice team and the oversight they granted provided useful direction for senior staff looking to improve patient safety. Because PC SafeQuest can be easily disseminated and independently completed it is logistically suited to larger practice organisations, whereas the MapSaf tool lends itself to smaller practices where assembling staff in a single workshop is more readily achieved.

Protocol for implementation of an evidence based parentally administered intervention for preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Multi-sensory behavioral interventions for preterm infants have the potential to accelerate feeding, growth, and optimize developmental trajectories and increase parents' interactive engagement with their infants. However, few neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) provide evidence-based standardized early behavioral interventions as routine care. Lack of implementation is a major gap between research and clinical practice. H-HOPE, is a standardized behavioral intervention with an infant- directed component (Massage+) and a parent-directed component (four participatory guidance sessions that focus on preterm infants' behaviors and appropriate responses). H-HOPE has well documented efficacy. The purpose of this implementation study is to establish H-HOPE as the standard of care in 5 NICUs.

METHODS

The study employs a Type 3 Hybrid design to simultaneously examine the implementation process and effectiveness in five NICUs. To stagger implementation across the clinical sites, we use an incomplete stepped wedge design. The five participating NICUs were purposively selected to represent different acuity levels, number of beds, locations and populations served. Our implementation strategy integrates our experience conducting H-HOPE and a well-established implementation model, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR identifies influences (facilitators and barriers) that affect successful implementation within five domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting (the hospital and external events and stakeholders), inner setting (NICU), implementers' individual characteristics, and the implementation process. NICUs will use the CFIR process, which includes three phases: Planning and Engaging, Executing, and Reflecting and Evaluating. Because sustaining is a critical goal of implementation, we modify the CFIR implementation process by adding a final phase of Sustaining.

DISCUSSION

This study builds on the CFIR, adding Sustaining H-HOPE to observe what happens when sites begin to maintain implementation without outside support, and extends its use to the NICU acute care setting. Our mixed methods analysis systematically identifies key facilitators and barriers of implementation success and effectiveness across the five domains of the CFIR. Long term benefits have not yet been studied but may include substantial health and developmental outcomes for infants, more optimal parent-child relationships, reduced stress and costs for families, and substantial indirect societal benefits including reduced health care and special education costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT04555590 , Registered on 8/19/2020.

Implementing PROMs in routine clinical care: a qualitative exploration of GP perspectives

BACKGROUND

The recently announced long-term plan for the NHS is based on a model of person-centred care, which relies on the sustained engagement of patients, shared decision making, and capability for self-management. For a primary care service under increasing pressure from an ageing and chronically ill population, Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) appear capable of supporting many of the requirements for person-centred care, yet little is known of the circumstances of their current implementation or how their use might be optimised.

AIM

To begin the conversation about how successfully PROMs have been integrated into primary care and how their use might be supported.

DESIGN & SETTING

A qualitative investigation of the perspectives of GPs exploring the use of PROMs as part of routine clinical care in England.

METHOD

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with GPs from across England. The data were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

A total of 25 interviews were conducted and GPs described the potential benefit of PROMs in a range of circumstances, but also voiced concerns about their reliability and their potential to constrain consultations. Their flexibility meant they had the potential to be incorporated into existing care processes but only with the requisite logistical support.

CONCLUSION

Areas that need to be addressed include the creation of a compelling body of evidence of the benefit of PROMs, appropriate training for staff and patients, and a coherent implementation strategy from policymakers and funding bodies.

Factors affecting the delivery of complex rehabilitation interventions in research with neurologically impaired adults: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Rehabilitation research does not always improve patient outcomes because of difficulties implementing complex health interventions. Identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation fidelity is critical. Not reporting implementation issues wastes research resources and risks erroneously attributing effectiveness when interventions are not implemented as planned, particularly progressing from single to multicentre trials. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity (CFIF) facilitate identification of barriers and facilitators. This review sought to identify barriers and facilitators (determinants) affecting implementation in trials of complex rehabilitation interventions for adults with long-term neurological conditions (LTNC) and describe implementation issues.

METHODS

Implementation, complex health interventions and LTNC search terms were developed. Studies of all designs were eligible. Searches involved 11 databases, trial registries and citations. After screening titles and abstracts, two reviewers independently shortlisted studies. A third resolved discrepancies. One reviewer extracted data in two stages; 1) descriptive study data, 2) units of text describing determinants. Data were synthesised by (1) mapping determinants to CFIF and CFIR and (2) thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies, from 7434 records, reported implementation determinants; 41 reported both barriers and facilitators. Most implied determinants but five used implementation theory to inform recording. More barriers than facilitators were mapped onto CFIF and CFIR constructs. "Patient needs and resources", "readiness for implementation", "knowledge and beliefs about the intervention", "facilitation strategies", "participant responsiveness" were the most frequently mapped constructs. Constructs relating to the quality of intervention delivery, organisational/contextual aspects and trial-related issues were rarely tapped. Thematic analysis revealed the most frequently reported determinants related to adherence, intervention perceptions and attrition.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has described the barriers and facilitators identified in studies implementing complex interventions for people with LTNCs. Early adoption of implementation frameworks by trialists can simplify identification and reporting of factors affecting delivery of new complex rehabilitation interventions. It is vital to learn from previous experiences to prevent unnecessary repetitions of implementation failure at both trial and service provision levels. Reported facilitators can provide strategies for overcoming implementation issues. Reporting gaps may be due to the lack of standardised reporting methods, researcher ignorance and historical reporting requirements.

SYSTEMIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015020423.

Implementing performance-based financing in peripheral health centres in Mali: what can we learn from it?

Introduction

Numerous sub-Saharan African countries have experimented with performance-based financing (PBF) with the goal of improving health system performance. To date, few articles have examined the implementation of this type of complex intervention in Francophone West Africa. This qualitative research aims to understand the process of implementing a PBF pilot project in Mali's Koulikoro region.

Method

We conducted a contrasted multiple case study of performance in 12 community health centres in three districts. We collected 161 semi-structured interviews, 69 informal interviews and 96 non-participant observation sessions. Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research adapted to the research topic and local context.

Results

Our analysis revealed that the internal context of the PBF implementation played a key role in the process. High-performing centres exercised leadership and commitment more strongly than low-performing ones. These two characteristics were associated with taking initiatives to promote PBF implementation and strengthening team spirit. Information regarding the intervention was best appropriated by qualified health professionals. However, the limited duration of the implementation did not allow for the emergence of networks or champions. The enthusiasm initially generated by PBF quickly dissipated, mainly due to delays in the implementation schedule and the payment modalities.

Conclusion

PBF is a complex intervention in which many actors intervene in diverse contexts. The initial level of performance and the internal and external contexts of primary healthcare facilities influence the implementation of PBF. Future work in this area would benefit from an interdisciplinary approach combining public health and anthropology to better understand such an intervention. The deductive–inductive approach must be the stepping-stone of such a methodological approach.

Evaluating and optimizing the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) for use in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a determinants framework that may require adaptation or contextualization to fit the needs of implementation scientists in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The purpose of this review is to characterize how the CFIR has been applied in LMIC contexts, to evaluate the utility of specific constructs to global implementation science research, and to identify opportunities to refine the CFIR to optimize utility in LMIC settings.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to evaluate the use of the CFIR in LMICs. Citation searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. Data abstraction included study location, study design, phase of implementation, manner of implementation (ex., data analysis), domains and constructs used, and justifications for use, among other variables. A standardized questionnaire was sent to the corresponding authors of included studies to determine which CFIR domains and constructs authors found to be compatible with use in LMICs and to solicit feedback regarding ways in which CFIR performance could be improved for use in LMICs.

RESULTS

Our database search yielded 504 articles, of which 34 met final inclusion criteria. The studies took place across 21 countries and focused on 18 different health topics. The studies primarily used qualitative study designs (68%). Over half (59%) of the studies applied the CFIR at study endline, primarily to guide data analysis or to contextualize study findings. Nineteen (59%) of the contacted authors participated in the survey. Authors unanimously identified culture and engaging as compatible with use in global implementation research. Only two constructs, patient needs and resources and individual stages of change were commonly identified as incompatible with use. Author feedback centered on team level influences on implementation, as well as systems characteristics, such as health system architecture. We propose a "Characteristics of Systems" domain and eleven novel constructs be added to the CFIR to increase its compatibility for use in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

These additions provide global implementation science practitioners opportunities to account for systems-level determinants operating independently of the implementing organization. Newly proposed constructs require further reliability and validity assessments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42018095762.

Barriers and facilitators to development and implementation of a rural primary health care intervention for dementia: a process evaluation

BACKGROUND

With rural population aging there are growing numbers of people with dementia in rural and remote settings. The role of primary health care (PHC) is critical in rural locations, yet there is a lack of rural-specific PHC models for dementia, and little is known about factors influencing the development, implementation, and sustainability of rural PHC interventions. Using a community-based participatory research approach, researchers collaborated with a rural PHC team to co-design and implement an evidence-based interdisciplinary rural PHC memory clinic in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. This paper reports barriers and facilitators to developing, implementing, and sustaining the intervention.

METHODS

A qualitative longitudinal process evaluation was conducted over two and half years, from pre- to post-implementation. Data collection and analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) which consists of 38 constructs within five domains: innovation characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, individual characteristics, and process. Data were collected via focus groups with the PHC team and stakeholders, smaller team workgroup meetings, and team member interviews. Analysis was conducted using a deductive approach to apply CFIR codes to the data and an inductive analysis to identify barriers and facilitators.

RESULTS

Across all domains, 14 constructs influenced development and implementation. Three domains (innovation characteristics, inner setting, process) were most important. Facilitators were the relative advantage of the intervention, ability to trial on a small scale, tension for change, leadership engagement, availability of resources, education and support from researchers, increased self-efficacy, and engagement of champions. Barriers included the complexity of multiple intervention components, required practice changes, lack of formal incentive programs, time intensiveness of modifying the EMR during iterative development, lack of EMR access by all team members, lack of co-location of team members, workload and busy clinical schedules, inability to justify a designated dementia care manager role, and turnover of PHC team members.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified key factors that supported and hindered the development and implementation of a rural-specific strategy for dementia assessment and management in PHC. Despite challenges related to the rural context, the researcher-academic partnership was successful in developing and implementing the intervention.

Consumer Perspectives of Safewards Impact in Acute Inpatient Mental Health Wards in Victoria, Australia

Background: Inpatient mental health wards are reported by many consumers to be custodial, unsafe, and lacking in therapeutic relationships. These consumer experiences are concerning, given international policy directives requiring recovery-oriented practice. Safewards is both a model and a suite of interventions designed to improve safety for consumers and staff. Positive results in reducing seclusion have been reported. However, the voice of consumers has been absent from the literature regarding Safewards in practice. Aim: To describe the impact of Safewards on consumer experiences of inpatient mental health services. Method: A postintervention survey was conducted with 72 consumers in 10 inpatient mental health wards 9-12 months after Safewards was implemented. Results: Quantitative data showed that participants felt more positive about their experience of an inpatient unit, safer, and more connected with nursing staff. Participants reported that the impact of verbal and physical aggression had reduced because of Safewards. Qualitatively, participants reported increased respect, hope, sense of community, and safety and reduced feelings of isolation. Some participants raised concerns about the language and intention of some interventions being condescending. Discussion: Consumers' responses to Safewards were positive, highlighting numerous improvements of importance to consumers since its implementation across a range of ward types. The findings suggest that Safewards offers a pathway to reducing restrictive interventions and enables a move toward recovery-oriented practice.

A qualitative framework-based evaluation of radiology clinical decision support initiatives: eliciting key factors to physician adoption in implementation

Objectives

To illustrate key contextual factors that may have effects on clinical decision support (CDS) adoption and, ultimately, success.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a qualitative evaluation of 2 similar radiology CDS innovations for near-term endpoints affecting adoption and present the findings using an evaluation framework. We identified key contextual factors between these 2 innovations and determined important adoption differences between them.

Results

Degree of electronic health record integration, approach to education and training, key drivers of adoption, and tailoring of the CDS to the clinical context were handled differently between the 2 innovations, contributing to variation in their relative degrees of adoption and use. Attention to these factors had impacts on both near and later-term measures of success (eg, patient outcomes).

Discussion

CDS adoption is a well-studied early-term measure of CDS success that directly impacts outcomes. Adoption requires attention throughout the design phases of an intervention especially to key factors directly affecting it, including how implementation across multiple sites and systems complicates adoption, which prior experience with CDS matters, and that practice guidelines invariably require tailoring to the clinical context.

Conclusion

With better planning for the capture of early-term measures of successful CDS implementation, especially adoption, critical adjustments may be made to ensure that the CDS is effectively implemented to be successful.

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.

Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange in health services research: Findings from a systematic scoping review

AIMS

To identify the key common components of knowledge transfer and exchange in existing models to facilitate practice developments in health services research.

BACKGROUND

There are over 60 models of knowledge transfer and exchange designed for various areas of health care. Many of them remain untested and lack guidelines for scaling-up of successful implementation of research findings and of proven models ensuring that patients have access to optimal health care, guided by current research.

DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange were identified using thematic analysis and frequency counts.

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases were searched for papers published before January 2015 containing four key terms/variants: knowledge, transfer, framework, health care.

REVIEW METHODS

Double screening, extraction and coding of the data using thematic analysis were employed to ensure rigour. As further validation stakeholders' consultation of the findings was performed to ensure accessibility.

RESULTS

Of the 4,288 abstracts, 294 full-text articles were screened, with 79 articles analysed. Six key components emerged: knowledge transfer and exchange message, Stakeholders and Process components often appeared together, while from two contextual components Inner Context and the wider Social, Cultural and Economic Context, with the wider context less frequently considered. Finally, there was little consideration of the Evaluation of knowledge transfer and exchange activities. In addition, specific operational elements of each component were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The six components offer the basis for knowledge transfer and exchange activities, enabling researchers to more effectively share their work. Further research exploring the potential contribution of the interactions of the components is recommended.

Exploring experiences among adopters during the diffusion of a novel dance intervention in Sweden

There is a demand for interventions aimed at adolescent girls with psychosomatic problems. In 2013, positive results were reported from a dance intervention programme addressing girls with internalizing problems. The research team behind the intervention immediately received requests from municipalities and county councils interested in using the intervention. From an implementation point of view it is unclear what made the intervention spread without an active plan. The aim of this study was to explore adopters' experiences about the diffusion and initiation of a public health intervention targeting adolescent girls with internalizing problems. Interviews were conducted with 12 people who were engaged in initiating the intervention in different settings. Data were analysed using conventional content analysis, yielding three categories: perceived appeal and trustworthiness, convenient information, and contextual factors. The results reflected that the participants found that there was a need for an intervention and found the dance intervention to be evidence based and not too complex to perform. Further, there was available information on the project which could easily be distributed to decision makers and others. When initiating the intervention, factors related to economy, possibility for collaboration and recruitment were of importance.

Identifying Barriers and Facilitators of 13 mHealth Projects in North America and Africa: Protocol for a 5-Year Implementation Science Study

Background

Although many mHealth interventions have shown efficacy in research, few have been effectively implemented and sustained in real-world health system settings. Despite this programmatic gap, there is limited conclusive evidence identifying the factors that affect the implementation and successful integration of mHealth into a health system.

Objective

The aim of this study is to examine the individual, organizational, and external level factors associated with the effective implementation of WelTel, an mHealth intervention designed to support outpatient medication adherence and engagement in care in Africa and North America.

Methods

We will adopt the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs for evaluation of mHealth implementation including a scoring and monitoring system. We will apply the adapted tool to identify facilitators and barriers to implementation of the WelTel mHealth intervention in order to determine how the technology platform is perceived, diffused, adapted, and used by different mHealth project teams and health system actors in Africa and North America. We will use a mixed-methods approach to quantitatively test whether the factors identified in the CFIR framework are associated with the successful uptake of the mHealth intervention toward implementation goals. We will triangulate these data through interviews and focus group discussion with project stakeholders, exploring factors associated with successful implementation and sustainment of these interventions.

Results

The development of the customized CFIR is finalized and currently is in pilot testing. The initial results of the use of the tool in those 13 implementations will be available in 2019. Continuous conference and peer- reviewed publications will be published in the coming years.

Conclusions

The results of this study will provide an in-depth understanding of individual, organizational, and external level factors that influence the successful implementation of mHealth in different health systems and geographic contexts over time. Via the tool’s unique scoring system connected to qualitative descriptors, these data will inform the most critical implementation targets and contribute to the tailoring of strategies that will assist the health system in overcoming barriers to implementation, and ultimately, improve treatment adherence and engagement in care.

Registered Report Identifier

RR1-10.2196/9633

How the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research Can Strengthen Findings and Improve Translation of Research Into Practice: A Case Study

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To answer how the planned intervention was performed in routine care, which factors supported or distracted from its implementation, and how key organizational structures have been built and sustained.
.

RESEARCH APPROACH

Mixed-methods process evaluation.
.

SETTING

Two German outpatient cancer clinics.
.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sampling of 297 recruited patients with gynecologic cancer, their treating oncology nurses, and their interprofessional healthcare team, and the clinical stakeholders of two different outpatient cancer clinics.
.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), five distinct interrelated substudies were designed to evaluate intervention characteristics, inner and outer settings, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Quantitative and qualitative data will be analyzed separately and then integrated into a framework analysis.
.

FINDINGS

Oncology nurses found the regular process analytic sessions to be beneficial, not only for sharing their experience, but also for experiencing social support and social connectedness.
.

INTERPRETATION

Key implementation facets of the nurse-led intervention will be examined systematically. The results can guide future implementation processes, which need to be tailored to interested facilities.
.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The CFIR framework is well established but not yet widely applied in supportive treatment research. The current study aims to apply and combine this framework with the concept of intervention fidelity.

IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EVIDENCED-BASED PARENTING PROGRAM IN A COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SETTING

The process of mental health intervention implementation with vulnerable populations is not well-described in the literature. The authors worked as a community-partnered team to adapt and pilot an empirically supported intervention program for mothers of infants and toddlers in an outpatient mental health clinic that primarily serves a low-income community. We used qualitative ethnographic methods to document the adaption of an evidence-based intervention, Mothering from the Inside Out, and the pilot implementation in a community mental health clinic. Seventeen mothers and their identified 0- to 84-month-old children were enrolled in the study. Key lessons from this implementation include (a) the importance of formative work to build community relationships and effectively adapt the intervention to meet the needs of the therapists and their clients, (b) the importance of designing plans for training and reflective supervision that fit within the flow of the clinic and can tolerate disruptions, and (c) that use of an interdisciplinary approach is feasible with the development of a plan for communication and the support of a trained reflective clinical supervisor. These key lessons advance the scientific knowledge available to healthcare managers and researchers who are looking to adapt mental health clinical interventions previously tested in clinical trials to implementation in community settings.

How is success achieved by individuals innovating for patient safety and quality in the NHS?

Background

Innovation in healthcare is said to be notoriously difficult to achieve and sustain yet simultaneously the health service is under intense pressure to innovate given the ever increasing demands placed upon it. Whilst many studies have looked at diffusion of innovation from an organisational perspective, few have sought to understand how individuals working in healthcare innovate successfully. We took a positive deviance approach to understand how innovations are achieved by individuals working in the NHS.

Method

We conducted in depth interviews in 2015 with 15 individuals who had received a national award for being a successful UK innovator in healthcare. We invited only those people who were currently (or had recently) worked in the NHS and whose innovation focused on improving patient safety or quality. Thematic analysis was used.

Findings

Four themes emerged from the data: personal determination, the ability to broker relationships and make connections, the ways in which innovators were able to navigate organisational culture to their advantage and their ability to use evidence to influence others. Determination, focus and persistence were important personal characteristics of innovators as were skills in being able to challenge the status quo. Innovators were able to connect sometimes disparate teams and people, being the broker between them in negotiating collaborative working. The culture of the organisation these participants resided in was important with some being able to use this (and the current patient safety agenda) to their advantage. Gathering robust data to demonstrate their innovation had a positive impact and was seen as essential to its progression.

Conclusions

This paper reveals a number of factors which are important to the success of innovators in healthcare. We have uncovered that innovators have particular personal traits which encourage a propensity towards change and action. Yet, for fruitful innovation to take place, it is important for relational networks and organisational culture to be receptive to change.

How do stakeholders from multiple hierarchical levels of a large provincial health system define engagement? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Engaging stakeholders from varied organizational levels is essential to successful healthcare quality improvement. However, engagement has been hard to achieve and to measure across diverse stakeholders. Further, current implementation science models provide little clarity about what engagement means, despite its importance. The aim of this study was to understand how stakeholders of healthcare improvement initiatives defined engagement.

METHODS

Participants (n = 86) in this qualitative thematic study were purposively sampled for individual interviews. Participants included leaders, core members, frontline clinicians, support personnel, and other stakeholders of Strategic Clinical Networks in Alberta Health Services, a Canadian provincial health system with over 108,000 employees. We used an iterative thematic approach to analyze participants' responses to the question, "How do you define engagement?"

RESULTS

Regardless of their organizational role, participants defined engagement through three interrelated themes. First, engagement was active participation from willing and committed stakeholders, with levels that ranged from information sharing to full decision-making. Second, engagement centered on a shared decision-making process about meaningful change for everyone "around the table," those who are most impacted. Third, engagement was two-way interactions that began early in the change process, where exchanges were respectful and all stakeholders felt heard and understood.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the commonalities of how stakeholders in a large healthcare system defined engagement-a shared understanding and terminology-to guide and improve stakeholder engagement. Overall, engagement was an active and committed decision-making about a meaningful problem through respectful interactions and dialog where everyone's voice is considered. Our results may be used in conjunction with current implementation models to provide clarity about what engagement means and how to engage various stakeholders.

Qualitative study on the implementation of professional pharmacy services in Australian community pharmacies using framework analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have explored the implementation process and influences, however it appears there is no study investigating these influences across the stages of implementation. Community pharmacy is attempting to implement professional services (pharmaceutical care and other health services). The use of implementation theory may assist the achievement of widespread provision, support and integration. The objective was to investigate professional service implementation in community pharmacy to contextualise and advance the concepts of a generic implementation framework previously published.

METHODS

Purposeful sampling was used to investigate implementation across a range of levels of implementation in community pharmacies in Australia. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed using a framework methodology. Data was charted using implementation stages as overarching themes and each stage was thematically analysed, to investigate the implementation process, the influences and their relationships. Secondary analyses were performed of the factors (barriers and facilitators) using an adapted version of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and implementation strategies and interventions, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) discrete implementation strategy compilation.

RESULTS

Six stages emerged, labelled as development or discovery, exploration, preparation, testing, operation and sustainability. Within the stages, a range of implementation activities/steps and five overarching influences (pharmacys' direction and impetus, internal communication, staffing, community fit and support) were identified. The stages and activities were not applied strictly in a linear fashion. There was a trend towards the greater the number of activities considered, the greater the apparent integration into the pharmacy organization. Implementation factors varied over the implementation stages, and additional factors were added to the CFIR list and definitions modified/contextualised for pharmacy. Implementation strategies employed by pharmacies varied widely. Evaluations were lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of implementation and five overarching influences of professional services implementation in community pharmacy have been outlined. Framework analysis revealed, outside of the five overarching influences, factors influencing implementation varied across the implementation stages. It is proposed at each stage, for each domain, the factors, strategies and evaluations should be considered. The Framework for the Implementation of Services in Pharmacy incorporates the contextualisation of implementation science for pharmacy.

Integrating evidence-based practices for increasing cancer screenings in safety net health systems: a multiple case study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Background

Implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) to increase cancer screenings in safety net primary care systems has great potential for reducing cancer disparities. Yet there is a gap in understanding the factors and mechanisms that influence EBP implementation within these high-priority systems. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), our study aims to fill this gap with a multiple case study of health care safety net systems that were funded by an American Cancer Society (ACS) grants program to increase breast and colorectal cancer screening rates. The initiative funded 68 safety net systems to increase cancer screening through implementation of evidence-based provider and client-oriented strategies.

Methods

Data are from a mixed-methods evaluation with nine purposively selected safety net systems. Fifty-two interviews were conducted with project leaders, implementers, and ACS staff. Funded safety net systems were categorized into high-, medium-, and low-performing cases based on the level of EBP implementation. Within- and cross-case analyses were performed to identify CFIR constructs that influenced level of EBP implementation.

Results

Of 39 CFIR constructs examined, six distinguished levels of implementation. Two constructs were from the intervention characteristics domain: adaptability and trialability. Three were from the inner setting domain: leadership engagement, tension for change, and access to information and knowledge. Engaging formally appointed internal implementation leaders, from the process domain, also distinguished level of implementation. No constructs from the outer setting or individual characteristics domain differentiated systems by level of implementation.

Conclusions

Our study identified a number of influential CFIR constructs and illustrated how they impacted EBP implementation across a variety of safety net systems. Findings may inform future dissemination efforts of EBPs for increasing cancer screening in similar settings. Moreover, our analytic approach is similar to previous case studies using CFIR and hence could facilitate comparisons across studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0477-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

BACKGROUND

In 2009, Damschroder et al. developed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which provides a comprehensive listing of constructs thought to influence implementation. This systematic review assesses the extent to which the CFIR's use in implementation research fulfills goals set forth by Damschroder et al. in terms of breadth of use, depth of application, and contribution to implementation research.

METHODS

We searched Scopus and Web of Science for publications that cited the original CFIR publication by Damschroder et al. (Implement Sci 4:50, 2009) and downloaded each unique result for review. After applying exclusion criteria, the final articles were empirical studies published in peer-review journals that used the CFIR in a meaningful way (i.e., used the CFIR to guide data collection, measurement, coding, analysis, and/or reporting). A framework analysis approach was used to guide abstraction and synthesis of the included articles.

RESULTS

Twenty-six of 429 unique articles (6 %) met inclusion criteria. We found great breadth in CFIR application; the CFIR was applied across a wide variety of study objectives, settings, and units of analysis. There was also variation in the method of included studies (mixed methods (n = 13); qualitative (n = 10); quantitative (n = 3)). Depth of CFIR application revealed some areas for improvement. Few studies (n = 3) reported justification for selection of CFIR constructs used; the majority of studies (n = 14) used the CFIR to guide data analysis only; and few studies investigated any outcomes (n = 11). Finally, reflections on the contribution of the CFIR to implementation research were scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the CFIR has been used across a wide range of studies, though more in-depth use of the CFIR may help advance implementation science. To harness its potential, researchers should consider how to most meaningfully use the CFIR. Specific recommendations for applying the CFIR include explicitly justifying selection of CFIR constructs; integrating the CFIR throughout the research process (in study design, data collection, and analysis); and appropriately using the CFIR given the phase of implementation of the research (e.g., if the research is post-implementation, using the CFIR to link determinants of implementation to outcomes).

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to Identify Barriers and Facilitators for the Implementation of an Internet-Based Patient-Provider Communication Service in Five Settings: A Qualitative Study

Background

Although there is growing evidence of the positive effects of Internet-based patient-provider communication (IPPC) services for both patients and health care providers, their implementation into clinical practice continues to be a challenge.

Objective

The 3 aims of this study were to (1) identify and compare barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of an IPPC service in 5 hospital units using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), (2) assess the ability of the different constructs of CFIR to distinguish between high and low implementation success, and (3) compare our findings with those from other studies that used the CFIR to discriminate between high and low implementation success.

Methods

This study was based on individual interviews with 10 nurses, 6 physicians, and 1 nutritionist who had used the IPPC to answer messages from patients.

Results

Of the 36 CFIR constructs, 28 were addressed in the interviews, of which 12 distinguished between high and low implementation units. Most of the distinguishing constructs were related to the inner setting domain of CFIR, indicating that institutional factors were particularly important for successful implementation. Health care providers’ beliefs in the intervention as useful for themselves and their patients as well as the implementation process itself were also important. A comparison of constructs across ours and 2 other studies that also used the CFIR to discriminate between high and low implementation success showed that 24 CFIR constructs distinguished between high and low implementation units in at least 1 study; 11 constructs distinguished in 2 studies. However, only 2 constructs (patient need and resources and available resources) distinguished consistently between high and low implementation units in all 3 studies.

Conclusions

The CFIR is a helpful framework for illuminating barriers and facilitators influencing IPPC implementation. However, CFIR’s strength of being broad and comprehensive also limits its usefulness as an implementation framework because it does not discriminate between the relative importance of its many constructs for implementation success. This is the first study to identify which CFIR constructs are the most promising to distinguish between high and low implementation success across settings and interventions. Findings from this study can contribute to the refinement of CFIR toward a more succinct and parsimonious framework for planning and evaluation of the implementation of clinical interventions.

ClinicalTrial

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00971139; http://clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/show/NCT00971139 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6cWeqN1uY)

An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist

BACKGROUND

The movement of evidence-based practices (EBPs) into routine clinical usage is not spontaneous, but requires focused efforts. The field of implementation science has developed to facilitate the spread of EBPs, including both psychosocial and medical interventions for mental and physical health concerns.

DISCUSSION

The authors aim to introduce implementation science principles to non-specialist investigators, administrators, and policymakers seeking to become familiar with this emerging field. This introduction is based on published literature and the authors' experience as researchers in the field, as well as extensive service as implementation science grant reviewers. Implementation science is "the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other EBPs into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services." Implementation science is distinct from, but shares characteristics with, both quality improvement and dissemination methods. Implementation studies can be either assess naturalistic variability or measure change in response to planned intervention. Implementation studies typically employ mixed quantitative-qualitative designs, identifying factors that impact uptake across multiple levels, including patient, provider, clinic, facility, organization, and often the broader community and policy environment. Accordingly, implementation science requires a solid grounding in theory and the involvement of trans-disciplinary research teams. The business case for implementation science is clear: As healthcare systems work under increasingly dynamic and resource-constrained conditions, evidence-based strategies are essential in order to ensure that research investments maximize healthcare value and improve public health. Implementation science plays a critical role in supporting these efforts.

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): a useful theoretical framework for guiding and evaluating a guideline implementation process in a hospital-based nursing practice

Background

Implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in healthcare settings is a complex intervention involving both independent and interdependent components. Although the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) has never been evaluated in a practical context, it appeared to be a suitable theoretical framework to guide an implementation process. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comprehensiveness, applicability and usefulness of the CFIR in the implementation of a fall-prevention CPG in nursing practice to improve patient care in an Austrian university teaching hospital setting.

Methods

The evaluation of the CFIR was based on (1) team-meeting minutes, (2) the main investigator’s research diary, containing a record of a before-and-after, mixed-methods study design embedded in a participatory action research (PAR) approach for guideline implementation, and (3) an analysis of qualitative and quantitative data collected from graduate and assistant nurses in two Austrian university teaching hospital departments. The CFIR was used to organise data per and across time point(s) and assess their influence on the implementation process, resulting in implementation and service outcomes.

Results

Overall, the CFIR could be demonstrated to be a comprehensive framework for the implementation of a guideline into a hospital-based nursing practice. However, the CFIR did not account for some crucial factors during the planning phase of an implementation process, such as consideration of stakeholder aims and wishes/needs when implementing an innovation, pre-established measures related to the intended innovation and pre-established strategies for implementing an innovation. For the CFIR constructs reflecting & evaluating and engaging, a more specific definition is recommended. The framework and its supplements could easily be used by researchers, and their scope was appropriate for the complexity of a prospective CPG-implementation project. The CFIR facilitated qualitative data analysis and provided a structure that allowed project results to be organised and viewed in a broader context to explain the main findings.

Conclusions

The CFIR was a valuable and helpful framework for (1) the assessment of the baseline, process and final state of the implementation process and influential factors, (2) the content analysis of qualitative data collected throughout the implementation process, and (3) explaining the main findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12912-015-0088-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness of multifaceted and tailored strategies to implement a fall-prevention guideline into acute care nursing practice: a before-and-after, mixed-method study using a participatory action research approach

Background

Research- and/or evidence-based knowledge are not routinely adopted in healthcare and nursing practice. It is also unclear which implementation strategies are effective in nursing practice and what expenditures of time and money are required for the successful implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The aim in this study was to assess the effectiveness and required time investment of multifaceted and tailored strategies for implementing an evidence-based fall-prevention guideline (Falls CPG) into nursing practice in an acute care hospital setting.

Methods

A before-and-after, mixed-method design was used within a participatory action research approach (PAR). The study was carried out in two departments of an Austrian university teaching hospital and included all graduate and assistant nurses. Data were collected through a questionnaire, group discussions and semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data were content-analysed using a template based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which also served as a theoretical framework for the study. Quantitative data were descriptively analysed using appropriate tests for independent groups.

Results

By applying multifaceted and tailored implementation strategies, the graduate and assistant nurses’ knowledge on fall prevention, how to access the Falls CPG and the guideline itself increased significantly between baseline and final assessment (p ≤ .001). Qualitative data also revealed an increase in participant awareness of fall prevention. A baseline positive attitude towards guidelines improved significantly towards the end of the project (p = .001). Required fall prevention equipment like baby monitors or one-way glide sheets were available for use and any required environmental adaptations, e.g. a handrail in the corridor, were made. Hospital nursing personnel (approximately 150) invested a total of 1192 hours of working time over the course of the project.

Conclusions

Multifaceted strategies tailored to the specific setting within a PAR approach and guided by the CFIR enabled the effective implementation of a CPG into acute care nursing practice. Nursing managers now have sound knowledge of the time resources required for CPG implementation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12912-015-0064-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Process evaluation of the implementation of dementia-specific case conferences in nursing homes (FallDem): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Challenging behaviors exhibited by individuals with dementia might result from an unmet need that they cannot communicate directly due to cognitive restrictions. A dementia-specific case conference represents a promising means of analyzing and exploring these unmet needs. The ongoing FallDem study is a stepped-wedged, cluster-randomized trial evaluating the effects of two different types of dementia-specific case conferences on the challenging behaviors of nursing home residents. This study protocol describes the process evaluation that is conducted, along with the FallDem study.

The goal of the process evaluation is to explain potential discrepancies between expected and observed outcomes, and to provide insights into implementation processes and recruitment strategies, as well as the contexts and contextual factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of dementia-specific case conferences.

Methods/Design

The process evaluation will use a mixed-method design comprising longitudinal elements, in which quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered. Qualitative data will be analyzed using content analysis, documentary analysis and a documentary method. Quantitative data (standardized questionnaires) will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. Both types of data will complement one another and provide a more comprehensive picture of the different objects under investigation.

Discussion

The process evaluation will allow for a comprehensive understanding of the changing processes and mechanisms underlying the ‘black box’ of the complex intervention of the FallDem study. These findings will provide practical knowledge regarding issues related to the implementation of dementia-specific case conferences in nursing homes.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials identifier: ISRCTN20203855, registered on 10th July 2013.

Using the Knowledge to Action Framework in practice: a citation analysis and systematic review

Background

Conceptual frameworks are recommended as a way of applying theory to enhance implementation efforts. The Knowledge to Action (KTA) Framework was developed in Canada by Graham and colleagues in the 2000s, following a review of 31 planned action theories. The framework has two components: Knowledge Creation and an Action Cycle, each of which comprises multiple phases. This review sought to answer two questions: ‘Is the KTA Framework used in practice? And if so, how?’

Methods

This study is a citation analysis and systematic review. The index citation for the original paper was identified on three databases—Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar—with the facility for citation searching. Limitations of English language and year of publication 2006-June 2013 were set. A taxonomy categorising the continuum of usage was developed. Only studies applying the framework to implementation projects were included. Data were extracted and mapped against each phase of the framework for studies where it was integral to the implementation project.

Results

The citation search yielded 1,787 records. A total of 1,057 titles and abstracts were screened. One hundred and forty-six studies described usage to varying degrees, ranging from referenced to integrated. In ten studies, the KTA Framework was integral to the design, delivery and evaluation of the implementation activities. All ten described using the Action Cycle and seven referred to Knowledge Creation. The KTA Framework was enacted in different health care and academic settings with projects targeted at patients, the public, and nursing and allied health professionals.

Conclusions

The KTA Framework is being used in practice with varying degrees of completeness. It is frequently cited, with usage ranging from simple attribution via a reference, through informing planning, to making an intellectual contribution. When the framework was integral to knowledge translation, it guided action in idiosyncratic ways and there was theory fidelity. Prevailing wisdom encourages the use of theories, models and conceptual frameworks, yet their application is less evident in practice. This may be an artefact of reporting, indicating that prospective, primary research is needed to explore the real value of the KTA Framework and similar tools.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0172-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors influencing rheumatologists' prescription of biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: an interview study

Background

The introduction of biological drugs involved a fundamental change in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The extent to which biological drugs are prescribed to RA patients in different regions in Sweden varies greatly. Previous research has indicated that differences in health care practice at the regional level might obscure differences at the individual level. The objective of this study is to explore what influences individual rheumatologists’ decisions when prescribing biological drugs.

Method

Semi-structured interviews, utilizing closed- and open-ended questions, were conducted with senior rheumatologists, selected through a mix of random and purposive sampling. The interview questions consisted of two parts, with a “parallel mixed method” approach. In the first and main part, open-ended exploratory questions were posed about factors influencing prescription. In the second part, the rheumatologists were asked to rate predefined factors that might influence their prescription decisions. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a conceptual framework for data collection and analysis.

Results

Twenty-six rheumatologists were interviewed. A constellation of various factors and their interaction influenced rheumatologists’ prescribing decisions, including the individual rheumatologist’s experiences and perceptions of the evidence, the structure of the department including responsibility for costs, peer pressure, political and administrative influences, and participation in clinical trials. The patient as an actor emerged as an important factor. Hence, factors both at organizational and individual levels influenced the prescribing of biological drugs. The factors should not be seen as individual influences but were described as influencing prescription in an interactive, nonlinear way.

Conclusions

Potential factors explaining differences in prescription practice are experience and perception of the evidence on the individual level and the structure of the department and participation in clinical trials on the organizational level. The influence of patient attitudes and preferences and interpretation of scientific evidence seemed to be somewhat contradictory in the qualitative responses as compared to the quantitative rating, and this needs further exploration. An implication of the present study is that in addition to scientific knowledge, attempts to influence prescription behavior need to be multifactorial and account for interactions of factors between different actors.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0153-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.