Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control (OPTICC): protocol for an implementation science center

Applying implementation science to evaluate participatory ergonomics program for continuous improvement: A case study in the construction industry

While participatory ergonomics (PE) presents numerous benefits, its empirical effectiveness remains elusive due to the lack of transparency in implementation contexts and processes. This hinders our ability to discern the reasons behind a program's success or failure and to determine optimization and adaptation strategies. To unravel this "black box," we present a case study using implementation science to evaluate a PE program and illuminate the mechanisms linking process to outcome. The study examines a 4.5-year PE program at a construction company, targeting musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) from material-cart handling. Using the RE-AIM framework and Implementation Causal Pathway Model, we evaluated implementation process and catalogued contextual factors through worker surveys (n = 106), safety document review (27 training sessions and 7 construction projects), and key informant observations. We assessed the program's impact using a 42-worker survey and an analysis of 8-year injury data, and determined the return-on-investment (ROI) by monetizing the collected data. The program achieved significant impact: Workers' ergonomic knowledge improved from 73% in baseline to 86% in follow-up; 97% of workers reported at least one positive change in their crews; and no cart handling injuries occurred after the first program change, resulting in a ROI rate of 1.99. Implementation process evaluation revealed that seamless integration, tailored intervention, and ongoing adjustments contributed to the success. Five organizational factors necessary for the effective functioning of these three strategies were identified, along with three moderators that amplified their influence. Finally, this case study demonstrates that implementation science offers a coherent structure for evaluating PE programs, uncovering mechanisms of change, and informing future improvements and adaptations. Our research facilitates knowledge transfer from implementation science to ergonomics, eventually leading to more cost-effective PE programs that are faithfully implemented across various industrial settings to prevent MSDs.

A Clinical Leadership Lens on Implementing Progress Feedback in Three Countries: Development of a Multidimensional Qualitative Coding Scheme

BACKGROUND

Progress feedback, also known as measurement-based care (MBC), is the routine collection of patient-reported measures to monitor treatment progress and inform clinical decision-making. Although a key ingredient to improving mental health care, sustained use of progress feedback is poor. Integration into everyday workflow is challenging, impacted by a complex interrelated set of factors across patient, clinician, organizational, and health system levels. This study describes the development of a qualitative coding scheme for progress feedback implementation that accounts for the dynamic nature of barriers and facilitators across multiple levels of use in mental health settings. Such a coding scheme may help promote a common language for researchers and implementers to better identify barriers that need to be addressed, as well as facilitators that could be supported in different settings and contexts.

METHODS

Clinical staff, managers, and leaders from two Dutch, three Norwegian, and four mental health organizations in the USA participated in semi-structured interviews on how intra- and extra-organizational characteristics interact to influence the use of progress feedback in clinical practice, supervision, and program improvement. Interviews were conducted in the local language, then translated to English prior to qualitative coding.

RESULTS

A team-based consensus coding approach was used to refine an a priori expert-informed and literature-based qualitative scheme to incorporate new understandings and constructs as they emerged. First, this hermeneutic approach resulted in a multi-level coding scheme with nine superordinate categories and 30 subcategories. Second-order axial coding established contextually sensitive categories for barriers and facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary outcome is an empirically derived multi-level qualitative coding scheme that can be used in progress feedback implementation research and development. It can be applied across contexts and settings, with expectations for ongoing refinement. Suggestions for future research and application in practice settings are provided. Supplementary materials include the coding scheme and a detailed playbook.

Multidisciplinary DEprescribing review for Frail oldER adults in long-term care (DEFERAL): Implementation strategy design using behaviour science tools and stakeholder engagement

INTRODUCTION

Deprescribing is a strategy for reducing the use of potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. Limited evidence exists on the development of strategies to support healthcare professionals (HCPs) deprescribing for frail older adults in long-term care (LTC).

OBJECTIVE

To design an implementation strategy, informed by theory, behavioural science and consensus from HCPs, which facilitates deprescribing in LTC.

METHODS

This study was consisted of 3 phases. First, factors influencing deprescribing in LTC were mapped to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) using the Behaviour Change Wheel and two published BCT taxonomies. Second, a Delphi survey of purposively sampled HCPs (general practitioners, pharmacists, nurses, geriatricians and psychiatrists) was conducted to select feasible BCTs to support deprescribing. The Delphi consisted of two rounds. Using Delphi results and literature on BCTs used in effective deprescribing interventions, BCTs which could form an implementation strategy were shortlisted by the research team based on acceptability, practicability and effectiveness. Finally, a roundtable discussion was held with a purposeful, convenience sample of LTC general practitioners, pharmacists and nurses to prioritise factors influencing deprescribing and tailor the proposed strategies for LTC.

RESULTS

Factors influencing deprescribing in LTC were mapped to 34 BCTs. The Delphi survey was completed by 16 participants. Participants reached consensus that 26 BCTs were feasible. Following the research team assessment, 21 BCTs were included in the roundtable. The roundtable discussion identified lack of resources as the primary barrier to address. The agreed implementation strategy incorporated 11 BCTs and consisted of an education-enhanced 3-monthly multidisciplinary team deprescribing review, led by a nurse, conducted at the LTC site.

CONCLUSION

The deprescribing strategy incorporates HCPs' experiential understanding of the nuances of LTC and thus addresses systemic barriers to deprescribing in this context. The strategy designed addresses five determinants of behaviour to best support HCPs engaging with deprescribing.

Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control

BACKGROUND

In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs.

METHODS

In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites.

RESULTS

Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

Speeding implementation in cancer: The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control

The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network represents a large-scale initiative to create an infrastructure to support and enable the efficient, effective, and equitable translation of approaches and evidence-based treatments to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. This Cancer MoonshotSM-funded ISC3 Network consists of 7 P50 Centers that support and advance the rapid development, testing, and refinement of innovative approaches to implement a range of evidence-based cancer control interventions. The Centers were designed to have research-practice partnerships at their core and to create the opportunity for a series of pilot studies that could explore new and sometimes risky ideas and embed in their infrastructure a 2-way engagement and collaboration essential to stimulating lasting change. ISC3 also seeks to enhance capacity of researchers, practitioners, and communities to apply implementation science approaches, methods, and measures. The Organizing Framework that guides the work of ISC3 highlights a collective set of 3 core areas of collaboration within and among Centers, including to 1) assess and incorporate dynamic, multilevel context; 2) develop and conduct rapid and responsive pilot and methods studies; and 3) build capacity for knowledge development and exchange. Core operating principles that undergird the Framework include open collaboration, consideration of the dynamic context, and engagement of multiple implementation partners to advance pragmatic methods and health equity and facilitate leadership and capacity building across implementation science and cancer control.

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

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

Conceptual tensions and practical trade-offs in tailoring implementation interventions

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

Mediators of measurement-based care implementation in community mental health settings: results from a mixed-methods evaluation

Background

Tailored implementation approaches are touted as superior to standardized ones with the reasoning that tailored approaches afford opportunities to select strategies to resolve determinants of the local context. However, results from implementation trials on this topic are equivocal. Therefore, it is important to explore relevant contextual factors that function as determinants to evaluate if they are improved by tailoring and subsequently associated with changes in implementation outcomes (i.e., via statistical mediation) to better understand how tailoring achieves (or does not achieve) its effects. The present study examined the association between a tailored and standardized implementation approach, contextual factors that might mediate change, and a target implementation outcome in an initiative to implement measurement-based care (specifically the clinical integration of the Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] for depression) in a community mental health organization.

Methods

Using a cluster randomized control design, twelve community-based mental health clinics were assigned to a tailored or standardized implementation group. Clinicians completed a self-report battery assessing contextual factors that served as candidate mediators informed by the Framework for Dissemination at three time points: baseline, 5 months after active implementation support, and 10 months after sustainment monitoring. A subset of clinicians also participated in focus groups at 5 months. The routine use of the PHQ-9 (implementation outcome) was monitored during the 10-month sustainment period. Multi-level mediation analyses assessed the association between the implementation group and contextual factors and the association between contextual factors and PHQ-9 completion. Quantitative results were then elaborated by analyzing qualitative data from exemplar sites.

Results

Although tailored clinics outperformed standard clinics in terms of PHQ-9 completion at the end of active implementation, these group differences disappeared post sustainment monitoring. Perhaps related to this, no significant mediators emerged from our quantitative analyses. Exploratory qualitative analyses of focus group content emphasized the importance of support from colleagues, supervisors, and leadership when implementing clinical innovations in practice.

Conclusions

Although rates of PHQ-9 completion improved across the study, their sustained levels were roughly equivalent across groups and low overall. No mediators were established using quantitative methods; however, several partial quantitative pathways, as well as themes from the qualitative data, reveal fruitful areas for future research.

Trial registration

Standardized versus tailored implementation of measurement-based care for depression. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02266134, first posted on October 16, 2014

Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco or alcohol use

BACKGROUND

Several school-based interventions are effective in improving child diet and physical activity, and preventing excessive weight gain, and tobacco or harmful alcohol use. However, schools are frequently unsuccessful in implementing such evidence-based interventions.

OBJECTIVES

1. To evaluate the benefits and harms of strategies aiming to improve school implementation of interventions to address student diet, physical activity, tobacco or alcohol use, and obesity. 2. To evaluate the benefits and harms of strategies to improve intervention implementation on measures of student diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use or alcohol use; describe their cost or cost-effectiveness; and any harms of strategies on schools, school staff or students.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was between 1 September 2016 and 30 April 2021 to identify any relevant trials published since the last published review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We defined 'Implementation' as the use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence-based health interventions and to change practice patterns within specific settings. We included any trial (randomised controlled trial (RCT) or non-randomised controlled trial (non-RCT)) conducted at any scale, with a parallel control group that compared a strategy to implement policies or practices to address diet, physical activity, overweight or obesity, tobacco or alcohol use by students to 'no intervention', 'usual' practice or a different implementation strategy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Given the large number of outcomes reported, we selected and included the effects of a single outcome measure for each trial for the primary (implementation) and secondary (student health behaviour and obesity) outcomes using a decision hierarchy. Where possible, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for variable outcome measures with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For RCTs, we conducted meta-analyses of primary and secondary outcomes using a random-effects model, or in instances where there were between two and five studies, a fixed-effect model. The synthesis of the effects for non-randomised studies followed the 'Synthesis without meta-analysis' (SWiM) guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 11 trials in this update bringing the total number of included studies in the review to 38. Of these, 22 were conducted in the USA. Twenty-six studies used RCT designs. Seventeen trials tested strategies to implement healthy eating, 12 physical activity and six a combination of risk factors. Just one trial sought to increase the implementation of interventions to delay initiation or reduce the consumption of alcohol. All trials used multiple implementation strategies, the most common being educational materials, educational outreach and educational meetings. The overall certainty of evidence was low and ranged from very low to moderate for secondary review outcomes. Pooled analyses of RCTs found, relative to a control, the use of implementation strategies may result in a large increase in the implementation of interventions in schools (SMD 1.04, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34; 22 RCTs, 1917 participants; low-certainty evidence). For secondary outcomes we found, relative to control, the use of implementation strategies to support intervention implementation may result in a slight improvement on measures of student diet (SMD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; 11 RCTs, 16,649 participants; low-certainty evidence) and physical activity (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.19; 9 RCTs, 16,389 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effects on obesity probably suggest little to no difference (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.02; 8 RCTs, 18,618 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effects on tobacco use are very uncertain (SMD -0.03, 95% CIs -0.23 to 0.18; 3 RCTs, 3635 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT assessed measures of student alcohol use and found strategies to support implementation may result in a slight increase in use (odds ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.56; P = 0.60; 2105 participants). Few trials reported the economic evaluations of implementation strategies, the methods of which were heterogeneous and evidence graded as very uncertain. A lack of consistent terminology describing implementation strategies was an important limitation of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of implementation strategies may result in large increases in implementation of interventions, and slight improvements in measures of student diet, and physical activity. Further research is required to assess the impact of implementation strategies on such behavioural- and obesity-related outcomes, including on measures of alcohol use, where the findings of one trial suggest it may slightly increase student risk. Given the low certainty of the available evidence for most measures further research is required to guide efforts to facilitate the translation of evidence into practice in this setting.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MAIN BODY

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

CONCLUSION

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

Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control

BACKGROUND

The past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute's Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on 'health equity and context' to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions.

DISCUSSION

In the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity. To advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.

Operationalizing a Rideshare Intervention for Colonoscopy Completion: Barriers, Facilitators, and Process Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Transportation is a common barrier to colonoscopy completion for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The study aims to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process recommendations to implement a rideshare non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) intervention following colonoscopy completion within a safety-net healthcare setting.

METHODS

We used informal stakeholder engagement, story boards - a novel user-centered design technique, listening sessions and the nominal group technique to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process to implementing a rideshare NEMT program following colonoscopy completion in a large safety-net healthcare system.

RESULTS

Barriers to implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention for colonoscopy completion included: inability to expand an existing NEMT program beyond Medicaid patients and lack of patient chaperones with rideshare NEMT programs. Facilitators included: commercially available rideshare NEMT platforms that were lower cost and had shorter wait times than the alternative of taxis. Operationalizing and implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention in our healthcare system required the following steps: 1) identifying key stakeholders, 2) engaging stakeholder groups in discussion to identify barriers and solutions, 3) obtaining institutional sign-off, 4) developing a process for reviewing and selecting a rideshare NEMT program, 5) executing contracts, 6) developing a standard operating procedure and 7) training clinic staff to use the rideshare platform.

DISCUSSION

Rideshare NEMT after procedural sedation is administered may improve colonoscopy completion rates and provide one solution to inadequate CRC screening. If successful, our rideshare model could be broadly applicable to other safety-net health systems, populations with high social needs, and settings where procedural sedation is administered.

An Implementation Science Laboratory as One Approach to Whole System Improvement: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective

Implementation science (IS) has emerged as an integral component for evidence-based whole system improvement. IS studies the best methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions into routine practice to improve the quality and effectiveness of health service delivery and patient care. IS laboratories (IS labs) are one mechanism to integrate implementation science as an evidence-based approach to whole system improvement and to support a learning health system. This paper aims to examine if IS labs are a suitable approach to whole system improvement. We retrospectively analyzed an existing IS lab (Alberta, Canada’s Implementation Science Collaborative) to assess the potential of IS labs to perform as a whole system approach to improvement and to identify key activities and considerations for designing IS labs specifically to support learning health systems. Results from our evaluation show the extent to which IS labs support learning health systems through enabling infrastructures for system-wide improvement and research.