Applying concepts from "rapid" and "agile" implementation to advance implementation research

How can a behavioral economics lens contribute to implementation science?

BACKGROUND

Implementation science in health is an interdisciplinary field with an emphasis on supporting behavior change required when clinicians and other actors implement evidence-based practices within organizational constraints. Behavioral economics has emerged in parallel and works towards developing realistic models of how humans behave and categorizes a wide range of features of choices that can influence behavior. We argue that implementation science can be enhanced by the incorporation of approaches from behavioral economics. Main body First, we provide a general overview of implementation science and ways in which implementation science has been limited to date. Second, we review principles of behavioral economics and describe how concepts from BE have been successfully applied to healthcare including nudges deployed in the electronic health record. For example, de-implementation of low-value prescribing has been supported by changing the default in the electronic health record. We then describe what a behavioral economics lens offers to existing implementation science theories, models and frameworks, including rich and realistic models of human behavior, additional research methods such as pre-mortems and behavioral design, and low-cost and scalable implementation strategies. We argue that insights from behavioral economics can guide the design of implementation strategies and the interpretation of implementation studies. Key objections to incorporating behavioral economics are addressed, including concerns about sustainment and at what level the strategies work.

CONCLUSION

Scholars should consider augmenting implementation science theories, models, and frameworks with relevant insights from behavioral economics. By drawing on these additional insights, implementation scientists have the potential to boost efforts to expand the provision and availability of high quality care.

Exploring health information system resilience during COVID-19 pandemic: case studies from Norway, Sri Lanka & Rwanda

The study aims at exploring health system resilience by defining the scope on health information systems, one of the six building blocks of the health system. The empirical evidence is derived using qualitative data collection and analysis in the context of Norway, Sri Lanka and Rwanda during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case studies elicit bounce back and bounce forward properties as well as the agility as major attributes of resilience present across the countries. Existing local capacity, networking and collaborations, flexible digital platforms and enabling antecedent conditions are identified as socio-technical determinants of information system resilience based on the case studies across the countries.

Sustainability, spread, and scale in trials using audit and feedback: a theory-informed, secondary analysis of a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used implementation strategy to influence health professionals' behavior that is often tested in implementation trials. This study examines how A&F trials describe sustainability, spread, and scale.

METHODS

This is a theory-informed, descriptive, secondary analysis of an update of the Cochrane systematic review of A&F trials, including all trials published since 2011. Keyword searches related to sustainability, spread, and scale were conducted. Trials with at least one keyword, and those identified from a forward citation search, were extracted to examine how they described sustainability, spread, and scale. Results were qualitatively analyzed using the Integrated Sustainability Framework (ISF) and the Framework for Going to Full Scale (FGFS).

RESULTS

From the larger review, n = 161 studies met eligibility criteria. Seventy-eight percent (n = 126) of trials included at least one keyword on sustainability, and 49% (n = 62) of those studies (39% overall) frequently mentioned sustainability based on inclusion of relevant text in multiple sections of the paper. For spread/scale, 62% (n = 100) of trials included at least one relevant keyword and 51% (n = 51) of those studies (31% overall) frequently mentioned spread/scale. A total of n = 38 studies from the forward citation search were included in the qualitative analysis. Although many studies mentioned the need to consider sustainability, there was limited detail on how this was planned, implemented, or assessed. The most frequent sustainability period duration was 12 months. Qualitative results mapped to the ISF, but not all determinants were represented. Strong alignment was found with the FGFS for phases of scale-up and support systems (infrastructure), but not for adoption mechanisms. New spread/scale themes included (1) aligning affordability and scalability; (2) balancing fidelity and scalability; and (3) balancing effect size and scalability.

CONCLUSION

A&F trials should plan for sustainability, spread, and scale so that if the trial is effective, the benefits can continue. A deeper empirical understanding of the factors impacting A&F sustainability is needed. Scalability planning should go beyond cost and infrastructure to consider other adoption mechanisms, such as leadership, policy, and communication, that may support further scalability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with Prospero in May 2022. CRD42022332606.

COVID-19 in Western Australia: 'The last straw' and hopes for a 'new normal' for parents of children with long-term conditions

BACKGROUND

Children with long-term conditions are vulnerable due to the treatments required for their conditions. Since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Western Australians experienced restrictions that changed daily life activities but were able to return to some of their previous routines due to the restrictions.

AIM

The study explored the stress experiences of parents caring for children with long-term conditions during COVID-19 in Western Australia.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

The study was codesigned with a parent representative caring for children with long-term conditions to ensure essential questions were targeted. Twelve parents of children with various long-term conditions were recruited. Ten parents completed the qualitative proforma, and two parents were interviewed in November 2020. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were anonymised and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Two themes were produced: (1) 'Keep my child safe' describes the children's vulnerabilities due to their long-term conditions, the adjustments parents' made to keep their children safe and the various consequences faced. (2) 'COVID-19's silver lining' covers the positives of the COVID-19 pandemic, including their children having fewer infections, the availability of telehealth appointments, relationship improvements and the parent's hopes for a new normal where behaviours prevent transmission of infectious (e.g., hand sanitising).

CONCLUSION

Western Australia provided a unique context for the COVID-19 pandemic due to no transmission of the virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at the time of the study. The tend and befriend theory aids in explaining the parents' stress experiences, and the application highlights a unique aspect of this theory. Parents tended to their children during COVID-19, but many could no longer rely on others for connection, support and respite, and became further isolated in attempting to protect their children due to COVID-19 consequences. The findings highlight that some parents of children with long-term conditions need specific attention during times of pandemics. Further review is recommended to support parents through the impact of COVID-19 and similar crises.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was codesigned with an experienced parent representative who was part of the research team and involved throughout the research process to ensure meaningful end-user engagement and ensure essential questions and priorities were addressed.

Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Proctor and colleagues' 2011 paper proposed a taxonomy of eight implementation outcomes and challenged the field to address a research agenda focused on conceptualization, measurement, and theory building. Ten years later, this paper maps the field's progress in implementation outcomes research. This scoping review describes how each implementation outcome has been studied, research designs and methods used, and the contexts and settings represented in the current literature. We also describe the role of implementation outcomes in relation to implementation strategies and other outcomes.

METHODS

Arksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews guided our methods. Using forward citation tracing, we identified all literature citing the 2011 paper. We conducted our search in the Web of Science (WOS) database and added citation alerts sent to the first author from the publisher for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. This produced 1346 titles and abstracts. Initial abstract screening yielded 480 manuscripts, and full-text review yielded 400 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria (empirical assessment of at least one implementation outcome).

RESULTS

Slightly more than half (52.1%) of included manuscripts examined acceptability. Fidelity (39.3%), feasibility (38.6%), adoption (26.5%), and appropriateness (21.8%) were also commonly examined. Penetration (16.0%), sustainability (15.8%), and cost (7.8%) were less frequently examined. Thirty-two manuscripts examined implementation outcomes not included in the original taxonomy. Most studies took place in healthcare (45.8%) or behavioral health (22.5%) organizations. Two-thirds used observational designs. We found little evidence of progress in testing the relationships between implementation strategies and implementation outcomes, leaving us ill-prepared to know how to achieve implementation success. Moreover, few studies tested the impact of implementation outcomes on other important outcome types, such as service systems and improved individual or population health.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review presents a comprehensive snapshot of the research questions being addressed by existing implementation outcomes literature and reveals the need for rigorous, analytic research and tests of strategies for attaining implementation outcomes in the next 10 years of outcomes research.

A mixed-method approach to generate and deliver rapid-cycle evaluation feedback: lessons learned from a multicenter implementation trial in pediatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Rapid-cycle feedback loops provide timely information and actionable feedback to healthcare organizations to accelerate implementation of interventions. We aimed to (1) describe a mixed-method approach for generating and delivering rapid-cycle feedback and (2) explore key lessons learned while implementing an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) across 18 pediatric surgery centers.

METHODS

All centers are members of the Pediatric Surgery Research Collaborative (PedSRC, www.pedsrc.org ), participating in the ENhanced Recovery In CHildren Undergoing Surgery (ENRICH-US) trial. To assess implementation efforts, we conducted a mixed-method sequential explanatory study, administering surveys and follow-up interviews with each center's implementation team 6 and 12 months following implementation. Along with detailed notetaking and iterative discussion within our team, we used these data to generate and deliver a center-specific implementation report card to each center. Report cards used a traffic light approach to quickly visualize implementation status (green = excellent; yellow = needs improvement; red = needs significant improvement) and summarized strengths and opportunities at each timepoint.

RESULTS

We identified several benefits, challenges, and practical considerations for assessing implementation and using rapid-cycle feedback among pediatric surgery centers. Regarding potential benefits, this approach enabled us to quickly understand variation in implementation and corresponding needs across centers. It allowed us to efficiently provide actionable feedback to centers about implementation. Engaging consistently with center-specific implementation teams also helped facilitate partnerships between centers and the research team. Regarding potential challenges, research teams must still allocate substantial resources to provide feedback rapidly. Additionally, discussions and consensus are needed across team members about the content of center-specific feedback. Practical considerations include carefully balancing timeliness and comprehensiveness when delivering rapid-cycle feedback. In pediatric surgery, moreover, it is essential to actively engage all key stakeholders (including physicians, nurses, patients, caregivers, etc.) and adopt an iterative, reflexive approach in providing feedback.

CONCLUSION

From a methodological perspective, we identified three key lessons: (1) using a rapid, mixed method evaluation approach is feasible in pediatric surgery and (2) can be beneficial, particularly in quickly understanding variation in implementation across centers; however, (3) there is a need to address several methodological challenges and considerations, particularly in balancing the timeliness and comprehensiveness of feedback.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NIH National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT04060303. Registered August 7, 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04060303.

The Agile Co-production and Evaluation framework for developing public health interventions, messaging and guidance

A lesson identified from the COVID-19 pandemic is that we need to extend existing best practice for intervention development. In particular, we need to integrate (a) state-of-the-art methods of rapidly coproducing public health interventions and messaging to support all population groups to protect themselves and their communities with (b) methods of rapidly evaluating co-produced interventions to determine which are acceptable and effective. This paper describes the Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework, which is intended to provide a focus for investigating new ways of rapidly developing effective interventions and messaging by combining co-production methods with large-scale testing and/or real-world evaluation. We briefly review some of the participatory, qualitative and quantitative methods that could potentially be combined and propose a research agenda to further develop, refine and validate packages of methods in a variety of public health contexts to determine which combinations are feasible, cost-effective and achieve the goal of improving health and reducing health inequalities.