Harmonizing evidence-based practice, implementation context, and implementation strategies with user-centered design: a case example in young adult cancer care

Incorporating patient, caregiver, and provider perspectives in the co-design of an app to guide Hospital at Home admission decisions: a qualitative analysis

Objective

Hospital at Home (HaH) programs currently lack decision support tools to help efficiently navigate the complex decision-making process surrounding HaH as a care option. We assessed user needs and perspectives to guide early prototyping and co-creation of 4PACS (Partnering Patients and Providers for Personalized Acute Care Selection), a decision support app to help patients make an informed decision when presented with discrete hospitalization options.

Methods

From December 2021 to January 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews via telephone with patients and caregivers recruited from Atrium Health's HaH program and physicians and a nurse with experience referring patients to HaH. Interviews were evaluated using thematic analysis. The findings were synthesized to create illustrative user descriptions to aid 4PACS development.

Results

In total, 12 stakeholders participated (3 patients, 2 caregivers, 7 providers [physicians/nurse]). We identified 4 primary themes: attitudes about HaH; 4PACS app content and information needs; barriers to 4PACS implementation; and facilitators to 4PACS implementation. We characterized 3 user descriptions (one per stakeholder group) to support 4PACS design decisions. User needs included patient selection criteria, clear program details, and descriptions of HaH components to inform care expectations. Implementation barriers included conflict between app recommendations and clinical judgement, inability to adequately represent patient-risk profile, and provider burden. Implementation facilitators included ease of use, auto-populating features, and appropriate health literacy.

Conclusions

The findings indicate important information gaps and user needs to help inform 4PACS design and barriers and facilitators to implementing 4PACS in the decision-making process of choosing between hospital-level care options.

Designing Survey-Based Mobile Interfaces for Rural Patients With Cancer Using Apple's ResearchKit and CareKit: Usability Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased accessibility and availability of technology in recent years, equality and access to health-related technology remain limited to some demographics. In particular, patients who are older or from rural communities represent a large segment of people who are currently underusing mobile health (mHealth) solutions. System usability continues to hinder mHealth adoption among users with nontraditional digital literacy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate if state-of-the-art mobile app interfaces from open-source libraries provide sufficient usability for rural patients with cancer, with minimal design changes and forgoing the co-design process.

METHODS

We developed Assuage (Network Reconnaissance Lab) as a research platform for any mHealth study. We conducted a pilot study using Assuage to assess the usability of 4 mobile user interfaces (UIs) based on open-source libraries from Apple's ResearchKit and CareKit. These UIs varied in complexity for reporting distress symptoms. Patients with cancer were recruited at the Markey Cancer Center, and all research procedures were conducted in person. Participants completed the distress assessment using a randomly selected UI in Assuage with little to no assistance. Data were collected on participant age, location, mobile app use, and familiarity with mHealth apps. Participants rated usability with the System Usability Scale (SUS), and usability issues were documented and compared. A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the effect of the UIs on the SUS scores.

RESULTS

We recruited 30 current or postsurgery patients with cancer for this pilot study. Most participants were aged >50 years (24/30, 80%), from rural areas (25/30, 83%), had up to a high school education (19/30, 63%), and were unfamiliar with mHealth apps (21/30, 70%). General mobile app use was split, with 43% (14/30) of the patients not regularly using mobile apps. The mean SUS score across the UIs was 75.8 (SD 22.2), with UI 3 and UI 4 achieving an SUS score ≥80, meeting the industry standard for good usability of 80. Critical usability issues were related to data input and navigation with touch devices, such as scale-format questions, vertical scrolling, and traversing multiple screens.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this study show that most patients with cancer (20/30, 67%) who participated in this study rated the different interfaces of Assuage as above-average usability (SUS score >68). This suggests that Apple's ResearchKit and CareKit libraries can provide usable UIs for older and rural users with minimal interface alterations. When resources are limited, the design stage can be simplified by omitting the co-design process while preserving suitable usability for users with nontraditional technical proficiency. Usability comparable to industry standards can be achieved by considering heuristics for interface and electronic survey design, specifically how to segment and navigate surveys, present important interface elements, and signal gestural interactions.

Integrating a mental health intervention into PrEP services for South African young women: a human-centred implementation research approach to intervention development

INTRODUCTION

Adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) who may benefit from HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) face high levels of common mental disorders (e.g. depression, anxiety). Common mental disorders can reduce PrEP adherence and increase HIV risk, yet mental health interventions have not been well-integrated into PrEP delivery.

METHODS

We conducted a four-phase human-centred design process, from December 2020 to April 2022, to understand mental health challenges among AGYW in Johannesburg, South Africa and barriers to integrated mental health and PrEP services. In the "Discover" phase, we conducted in-depth interviews with AGYW and key informants (KIs) in Johannesburg. We conducted a rapid qualitative analysis, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to identify facilitators and barriers of integrated mental health and PrEP services and mapped barriers to potential implementation strategies. In the "Design" and "Build" phases, we conducted stakeholder workshops to iteratively adapt an evidence-based mental health intervention, the Friendship Bench, and refine implementation strategies for South African PrEP delivery settings. In the "Test" phase, we piloted our adapted Friendship Bench package.

RESULTS

Interviews with 70 Discover phase participants (48 AGYW, 22 KIs) revealed the importance of integrated mental health and PrEP services for South African AGYW. Interviewees described barriers and implementation strategies for mental health and PrEP services around the CFIR domains: intervention characteristics (e.g. challenges with AGYW "opening up"); outer Johannesburg setting (e.g. community stigma); inner clinic setting (e.g. judgemental healthcare providers); characteristics of counsellors (e.g. training gaps); and the implementation process (e.g. need for demand creation). The Design and Build workshops included 13 AGYW and 15 KIs. Implementation barriers related to the quality and accessibility of public-sector clinic services, lay counsellor training, and community education and demand creation activities were prioritized. This led to 12 key Friendship Bench adaptations and the specification of 10 implementation strategies that were acceptable and feasible in initial pilot testing with three AGYW.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a human-centred approach, we identified determinants and potential solutions for integrating mental health interventions within PrEP services for South African AGYW. This design process centred stakeholders' perspectives, enabling rapid development of an adapted Friendship Bench intervention implementation package.

Achieving a Brighter Future: A Career-Focused Mentoring Program Designed for Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer

Despite high survival rates for many adolescent or young adult (AYA) cancer diagnoses, the psychosocial, academic, and vocational repercussions for survivors are profound and enduring. Hospital systems are able to address many AYA needs, but the ability to provide the human connectedness and knowledge that drive long-term school and career planning is lacking. This study assessed a group of AYAs who have or had cancer (n = 108, 54% female, 71% white, mean age 20.6 ± 4.4) to determine the school, career, medical, emotional, and psychosocial needs that are not currently being met by hospital staff and support networks. We identified the most common unmet needs of AYAs, differences between needs of AYAs in active treatment and survivorship, and the role of a career-focused mentoring program developed by the nonprofit organization Connecting Champions (CC) to address the array of unmet AYA needs. We found that the most commonly reported needs were all related to career and school, and that the top needs did not differ significantly throughout the cancer journey. These findings suggest that career and school-based needs are a high priority for AYAs, yet social isolation can make the necessary people or resources inaccessible. The CC mentoring program was reported as effective in attending to unmet needs (with an average score of 95.1/100) and can be a valuable resource for hospital systems, nonprofit organizations, and health insurers to provide personalized, career-focused support to AYAs during cancer treatment and survivorship.

Development of a method for Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI): a modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources.

METHOD

MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability and inclusion (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application.

DISCUSSION

MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.

Leveraging systems science and design thinking to advance implementation science: moving toward a solution-oriented paradigm

Many public health challenges are characterized by complexity that reflects the dynamic systems in which they occur. Such systems involve multiple interdependent factors, actors, and sectors that influence health, and are a primary driver of challenges of insufficient implementation, sustainment, and scale of evidence-based public health interventions. Implementation science frameworks have been developed to help embed evidence-based interventions in diverse settings and identify key factors that facilitate or hinder implementation. These frameworks are largely static in that they do not explain the nature and dynamics of interrelationships among the identified determinants, nor how those determinants might change over time. Furthermore, most implementation science frameworks are top-down, deterministic, and linear, leaving critical gaps in understanding of both how to intervene on determinants of successful implementation and how to scale evidence-based solutions. Design thinking and systems science offer methods for transforming this problem-oriented paradigm into one that is solution-oriented. This article describes these two approaches and how they can be integrated into implementation science strategies to promote implementation, sustainment, and scaling of public health innovation, ultimately resulting in transformative systems changes that improve population health.

Identification and development of implementation strategies: the important role of codesign

Background

To date, implementation strategies reported in the literature are commonly poorly described and take the implementation context insufficiently into account. To unravel the black box of implementation strategy development, insight is needed into effective theory-based and practical-informed strategies. The current study aims to describe the stepwise development of a practical-informed and theory-based implementation strategy bundle to implement ProMuscle, a nutrition and exercise intervention for community-dwelling older adults, in multiple settings in primary care.

Methods

The first four steps of Implementation Mapping were adopted to develop appropriate implementation strategies. First, previously identified barriers to implementation were categorized into the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Second, the CFIR-ERIC matching tool linked barriers to existing implementation strategies. Behavioral change strategies were added from the literature where necessary. Third, evidence for implementation strategies was sought. Fourth, in codesign with involved healthcare professionals and implementation experts, implementation strategies were operationalized to practical implementation activities following the guidance provided by Proctor et al. These practical implementation activities were processed into an implementation toolbox, which can be tailored to a specific context and presents prioritized implementation activities in a chronological order.

Results

A previous study identified and categorized a total of 654 barriers for the implementation of a combined lifestyle intervention within the CFIR framework. Subsequently, the barriers were linked to 40 strategies. Due to the fact that many strategies impacted multiple barriers, seven overarching themes emerged based on the strategies: assessing the context, network internally, network externally, costs, knowledge, champions, and patient needs and resources. Codesign sessions with professionals and implementation experts resulted in the development of supported and tangible implementation activities for the final 20 strategies. The implementation activities were processed into a web-based implementation toolbox, which allows healthcare professionals to tailor the implementation activities to their specific context and guides healthcare professionals to prioritize implementation activities chronologically during their implementation.

Conclusion

A theory-based approach in combination with codesign sessions with stakeholders is a usable Implementation Strategy Mapping Method for developing a practical implementation strategy bundle to implement ProMuscle across multiple settings in primary care. The next step involves evaluating the developed implementation strategies, including the implementation toolbox, to assess their impact on the implementation and adoption of ProMuscle.

Development of a method for Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI): A modified Delphi study

Background

Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources.

Method

MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis.

Results

In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application.

Discussion

MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.

Creating a Statistical Analysis Plan to Continually Evaluate Intervention Adaptations that Arise in Real-World Implementation

Evidence-based health interventions are frequently translated into real-world settings where practical needs drive changes to intervention protocols. Due to logistical and resource constraints, these naturally arising adaptations are rarely assessed for comparative effectiveness using a randomized trial. Nevertheless, when observational data are available, it is still possible to identify beneficial adaptations using statistical methods that adjust for differences among intervention groups. As implementation continues and more data are collected and assessed, we also require analysis methods that ensure low statistical error rates as multiple comparisons are made over time. This paper describes how to create a statistical analysis plan for evaluating adaptations to an intervention during ongoing implementation. This can be done by combining methods commonly used in platform clinical trials with methods used for real-world data. We also demonstrate how to use simulations based on previous data to decide the frequency with which to conduct statistical analyses. The illustration uses data from large-scale implementation of a school-based resilience and skill-building preventive intervention to which several adaptations were made. The proposed statistical analysis plan for evaluating the school-based intervention has potential to improve population-level outcomes as implementation scales up further and additional adaptations are anticipated.

Bridging HCI and Implementation Science for Innovation Adoption and Public Health Impact

Human computer interaction (HCI) and implementation science (IS) each have been applied to improve the adoption and delivery of innovative health interventions, and the two fields have complementary goals, foci, and methods. While the IS community increasingly draws on methods from HCI, there are many unrealized opportunities for HCI to draw from IS and to catalyze bidirectional collaborations. This workshop will explore similarities and differences between fields, with a goal of articulating a research agenda at their intersection.

The Adolescent and Young Adult Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB): A single-arm feasibility pilot study

PURPOSE

In this pilot study, we evaluated the feasibility of implementing the Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB)- an intervention to address the pervasive unmet needs of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) during cancer treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods single-arm feasibility pilot study of NA-SB at the North Carolina Basnight Cancer Hospital. Eligible participants were AYAs ages 18-39 in active cancer treatment. After receiving NA-SB, participants completed a postintervention survey assessing their perceptions of NA-SB. We interviewed participating providers to assess their implementation experiences.

RESULTS

On average, AYA participants (n = 26) rated NA-SB's feasibility as 4.5/5, its acceptability as 4.5/5, and its appropriateness as 4.4/5. 77% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that their needs were met in the study period.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study generated preliminary evidence to establish NA-SB's feasibility as well as proof of concept for the intervention as a viable approach for identifying and addressing AYAs' unmet needs.

Multi-method study of the implementation of Cognitive Symptom Management and Rehabilitation Training (CogSMART) in real-world settings

Cognitive Symptom Management and Rehabilitation Training (CogSMART) and Compensatory Cognitive Training (CCT) are evidence-based compensatory cognitive training interventions that improve cognition in persons with a history of traumatic brain injury or other neuropsychiatric disorders. Despite demonstrated efficacy, use and effectiveness of CogSMART/CCT in real-world settings is not known.We used a multi-method design to collect and analyze quantitative and qualitative survey data from several domains of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to gather information about use of CogSMART/CCT in real-world settings from provider and patient perspectives. Surveys were sent to email addresses from persons who registered on the CogSMART website seeking access to training manuals and other resources. Descriptive statistics were generated, and we used Natural Language Processing methods to study the self-report free responses. Using n-gram analysis, we identified the most frequently reported responses.We found CogSMART/CCT was broadly used in real-world settings and delivered by a variety of providers for several patient groups with high attendance and overall high satisfaction. CogSMART/CCT seemed to be offered in VA- or university-related clinics more than in private practice or rehabilitation centers. The diversity of providers and variety of formats by which to deliver CogSMART/CCT (i.e., individual, group, telehealth) seemed to play a role in its widespread implementation, as did its adaptability. Most providers made adaptations to the intervention that reduced the length or number of sessions. These changes were most likely to be based on client characteristics. The low rates of formal training, however, may have contributed to lower levels of perceived helpfulness among patients.Reach and Adoption of a cognitive rehabilitation intervention improved by increasing access to the manuals. Attention to characteristics of dissemination and implementation in the design of an intervention may enhance its use in real-world settings. The relevant outcomes, easy access to training manuals, and adaptability of CogSMART/CCT seem to have been important factors in its use in a variety of settings and for several disorders with cognitive impairment. The adoption of CogSMART/CCT by a variety of providers other than neuropsychologists suggests its use may be broadened to other healthcare providers, if adequately trained, to increase access to an intervention with demonstrated efficacy for cognitive rehabilitation for several neuropsychiatric disorders.

Methodological approaches to study context in intervention implementation studies: an evidence gap map

BACKGROUND

Within implementation science studies, contextual analysis is increasingly recognized as foundational to interventions' successful and sustainable implementation. However, inconsistencies between methodological approaches currently limit progress in studying context and guidance to standardize the use of those approaches is scant. Therefore, this study's objective was to systematically review and map current methodological approaches to contextual analysis in intervention implementation studies. The results would help us both to systematize the process of contextual analysis and identify gaps in the current evidence.

METHODS

We conducted an evidence gap map (EGM) based on literature data via a stepwise approach. First, using an empirically developed search string, we randomly sampled 20% of all intervention implementation studies available from PubMed per year (2015-2020). Second, we assessed included studies that conducted a contextual analysis. Data extraction and evaluation followed the Basel Approach for CoNtextual ANAlysis (BANANA), using a color-coded rating scheme. Also based on BANANA and on the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework-an implementation framework that pays ample attention to context- we created visual maps of various approaches to contextual analysis.

RESULTS

Of 15, 286 identified intervention implementation studies and study protocols, 3017 were screened for inclusion. Of those, 110 warranted close examination, revealing 22% that reported on contextual analysis. Only one study explicitly applied a framework for contextual analysis. Data were most commonly collected via surveys (n = 15) and individual interviews (n = 13). Ten studies reported mixed-methods analyses. Twenty-two assessed meso-level contextual and setting factors, with socio-cultural aspects most commonly studied. Eighteen described the use of contextual information for subsequent project phases (e.g., intervention development/adaption, selecting implementation strategies). Nine reported contextual factors' influences on implementation and/or effectiveness outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes current approaches to contextual analysis in implementation science and provides a novel framework for evaluating and mapping it. By synthesizing our findings graphically in figures, we provide an initial evidence base framework that can incorporate new findings as necessary. We strongly recommend further development of methodological approaches both to conduct contextual analysis and to systematize the reporting of it. These actions will increase the quality and consistency of implementation science research.

A pragmatic methodical framework for the user-centred development of an electronic process support for the sleep laboratory patients' management

OBJECTIVE

Limited capacities and ineffective care pathways result in long waiting times for patients and sporadic treatment controls in sleep medicine. As one objective of the 'Telesleep Medicine' project, a portal should be developed, which supports sleep specialists in an efficient and resource-saving patient management. On account of the limited project timeframe, the 'classical' user-centred design and evaluation methods could not be comprehensively implemented. Therefore, a pragmatic methodical framework was developed.

METHODS

For the iterative development of the portal, a combination of low-cost and quick-to-implement methods was used. In chronological order, these were: context interviews, personas, the development of an as-is model, a web search of design standards and good design aspects of similar systems, the development of a to-be model, the creation of an overarching mind map, and the iterative creation of mockups with simplified usability walkthroughs.

RESULTS

The feasibility of the pragmatic methodological framework for the development of a prototype for the portal was demonstrated. The used method combination resulted in a prototype based on the needs and requirements of the sleep specialists, taking into account their specific workflow and the technical implementation conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented pragmatic methodological framework can be a valuable resource for developers of comparable projects. The combination of methods worked well together regarding the limited timeframe and resources for concept development. For the future, we plan to implement and test the portal in the clinical field and thus enrich our framework with additional methods.

Optimising the Conceptualisation of Context Comment on "Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-country Analysis"

Context matters. Therefore, efforts to develop greater conceptual clarity are important for science and practice. In this commentary, we outline some key issues that were prompted by Squire's et al.'s contribution. Specifically, we reinforce context as an interactive concept and therefore something that is hard to 'pin down', the problematic nature of conceptualising context in implementation and de-implementation, and a requirement for the development of culturally sensitive understandings. Finally, we suggest it is vital that continued investment into providing a more comprehensive list of determinants needs to be accompanied by an equal effort in developing practical methods and tools to support use and application.

Unraveling implementation context: the Basel Approach for coNtextual ANAlysis (BANANA) in implementation science and its application in the SMILe project

BACKGROUND

Designing intervention and implementation strategies with careful consideration of context is essential for successful implementation science projects. Although the importance of context has been emphasized and methodology for its analysis is emerging, researchers have little guidance on how to plan, perform, and report contextual analysis. Therefore, our aim was to describe the Basel Approach for coNtextual ANAlysis (BANANA) and to demonstrate its application on an ongoing multi-site, multiphase implementation science project to develop/adapt, implement, and evaluate an integrated care model in allogeneic SteM cell transplantatIon facILitated by eHealth (the SMILe project).

METHODS

BANANA builds on guidance for assessing context by Stange and Glasgow (Contextual factors: the importance of considering and reporting on context in research on the patient-centered medical home, 2013). Based on a literature review, BANANA was developed in ten discussion sessions with implementation science experts and a medical anthropologist to guide the SMILe project's contextual analysis. BANANA's theoretical basis is the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework. Working from an ecological perspective, CICI acknowledges contextual dynamics and distinguishes between context and setting (the implementation's physical location).

RESULTS

BANANA entails six components: (1) choose a theory, model, or framework (TMF) to guide the contextual analysis; (2) use empirical evidence derived from primary and/or secondary data to identify relevant contextual factors; (3) involve stakeholders throughout contextual analysis; (4) choose a study design to assess context; (5) determine contextual factors' relevance to implementation strategies/outcomes and intervention co-design; and (6) report findings of contextual analysis following appropriate reporting guidelines. Partly run simultaneously, the first three components form a basis both for the identification of relevant contextual factors and for the next components of the BANANA approach.

DISCUSSION

Understanding of context is indispensable for a successful implementation science project. BANANA provides much-needed methodological guidance for contextual analysis. In subsequent phases, it helps researchers apply the results to intervention development/adaption and choices of contextually tailored implementation strategies. For future implementation science projects, BANANA's principles will guide researchers first to gather relevant information on their target context, then to inform all subsequent phases of their implementation science project to strengthen every part of their work and fulfill their implementation goals.

Understanding dynamic complexity in context-Enriching contextual analysis in implementation science from a constructivist perspective

Context in implementation science includes not only characteristics of a setting in which an intervention will be delivered, but also social systems (e.g., interrelationships). Context is dynamic and interacts with both, the intervention and its implementation. Therefore, contextual analysis is recognized as an indispensable part of implementation science methodology: it provides the foundation for successful and sustainable implementation projects. Yet, driven by the prevailing post-positivist understanding of context, contextual analysis typically focuses on individual characteristics of context i.e., contextual dynamics and interactions go unnoticed. Conducting contextual analysis from a constructivist perspective promotes a multilayered approach, building a more comprehensive understanding of context, and thus facilitating successful implementation. In this article, we highlight the limitations of prevailing perspectives on context and approaches to contextual analysis. We then describe how contextual analysis can be enriched by working from a constructivist perspective. We finish with a discussion of the methodological and practical implications the proposed changes would entail. Emerging literature attempts to address both the concept of context and methods for contextual analysis. Various theories, models and frameworks consider context, however, many of these are reductionistic and do not acknowledge the dynamic nature of context or interactions within it. To complement recent conceptualizations of context, we suggest consider the following five constructivist concepts: 1) social space; 2) social place; 3) agency; 4) sensation; and 5) embodiment. We demonstrate the value of these concepts using COVID-19 vaccination uptake as an example and integrate the concepts in the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework-an implementation science framework that pays ample attention to context. To study context from a constructivist perspective, we also suggest additional considerations in view of methodologies for data collection and analysis, e.g., rapid ethnographic methods. A constructivist perspective contributes to a stronger conceptualization of contextual analysis. Considering the five constructivist concepts helps to overcome contextual analysis' current shortcomings, while revealing complex dynamics that usually go unnoticed. Thus, more comprehensive understanding of context can be developed to inform subsequent phases of an implementation project, thereby maximizing an intervention's uptake and sustainability.

Making implementation science more real

Implementation science in healthcare aims to understand how to get evidence into practice. Once this is achieved in one setting, it becomes increasingly difficult to replicate elsewhere. The problem is often attributed to differences in context that influence how and whether implementation strategies work. We argue that realist research paradigms provide a useful framework to express the effect of contextual factors within implementation strategy causal processes. Realist studies are theory-driven evaluations that focus on understanding how and why interventions work under different circumstances. They consider the interaction between contextual circumstances, theoretical mechanisms of change and the outcomes they produce, to arrive at explanations of conditional causality (i.e., what tends to work, for whom, under what circumstances). This Commentary provides example applications using preliminary findings from a large realist implementation study of system-wide value-based healthcare initiatives in New South Wales, Australia. If applied judiciously, realist implementation studies may represent a sound approach to help optimise delivery of the right care in the right setting and at the right time.

CENTER-IT: a novel methodology for adapting multi-level interventions using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-a case example of a school-supervised asthma intervention

Background

Implementation science frameworks advise the engagement of multi-level partners (at the patient, provider, and systems level) to adapt and increase the uptake of evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, there is little guidance to ensure that systems-level adaptations reflect the voices of providers who deliver and patients/caregivers who receive EBPs.

Methods

We present a novel methodology, grounded in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which anchors the engagement of multi-level partners to the voices of individuals who deliver and receive EBPs. Using the CFIR domains: intervention adaptation, individuals involved, inner/outer setting, and process, we illustrate our 4-step methodology through a case example of Asthma Link, a school-supervised asthma management intervention. In step 1, we interviewed “individuals involved” in the intervention (providers/caregivers/patients of Asthma Link) to identify implementation barriers. In step 2, we selected systems-level partners in the “inner and outer setting” that could assist with addressing these barriers. In step 3, we presented the barriers to these systems-level partners and conducted semi-structured interviews to elicit their recommended solutions (process). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and open-coded. A theoretical sampling model and deductive reasoning were used to identify solutions to implementation barriers. In step 4, we utilized multi-level input to adapt the Asthma Link intervention.

Results

Identified barriers included inability to obtain two inhalers for home and school use, inconsistent delivery of the inhaler to school by families, and challenges when schools did not have a nurse. Interviews conducted with school/clinic leaders, pharmacists, payors, legislators, and policymakers (n=22) elicited solutions to address provider and patient/caregiver-identified barriers, including (1) establishing a Medicaid-specific pharmacy policy to allow dispensation of two inhalers, (2) utilizing pharmacy-school delivery services to ensure medication reaches schools, and (3) identifying alternate (non-nurse) officials to supervise medication administration. The iterative process of engaging multi-level partners helped to create an adapted Asthma Link intervention, primed for effective implementation.

Conclusions

This novel methodology, grounded in the CFIR, ensures that systems-level changes that require the engagement of multi-level partners reflect the voices of individuals who deliver and receive EBPs. This methodology demonstrates the dynamic interplay of CFIR domains to advance the field of implementation science.

Collaborative design and implementation of a clinical decision support system for automated fall-risk identification and referrals in emergency departments

Of the 3 million older adults seeking fall-related emergency care each year, nearly one-third visited the Emergency Department (ED) in the previous 6 months. ED providers have a great opportunity to refer patients for fall prevention services at these initial visits, but lack feasible tools for identifying those at highest-risk. Existing fall screening tools have been poorly adopted due to ED staff/provider burden and lack of workflow integration. To address this, we developed an automated clinical decision support (CDS) system for identifying and referring older adult ED patients at risk of future falls. We engaged an interdisciplinary design team (ED providers, health services researchers, information technology/predictive analytics professionals, and outpatient Falls Clinic staff) to collaboratively develop a system that successfully met user requirements and integrated seamlessly into existing ED workflows. Our rapid-cycle development and evaluation process employed a novel combination of human-centered design, implementation science, and patient experience strategies, facilitating simultaneous design of the CDS tool and intervention implementation strategies. This included defining system requirements, systematically identifying and resolving usability problems, assessing barriers and facilitators to implementation (e.g., data accessibility, lack of time, high patient volumes, appointment availability) from multiple vantage points, and refining protocols for communicating with referred patients at discharge. ED physician, nurse, and patient stakeholders were also engaged through online surveys and user testing. Successful CDS design and implementation required integration of multiple new technologies and processes into existing workflows, necessitating interdisciplinary collaboration from the onset. By using this iterative approach, we were able to design and implement an intervention meeting all project goals. Processes used in this Clinical-IT-Research partnership can be applied to other use cases involving automated risk-stratification, CDS development, and EHR-facilitated care coordination.