Shifting Implementation Science Theory to Empower Primary Care Practices

A streamlined approach to classifying and tailoring implementation strategies: recommendations to speed the translation of research to practice

BACKGROUND

Implementation science emerged from the recognized need to speed the translation of effective interventions into practice. In the US, the science has evolved to place an ever-increasing focus on implementation strategies. The long list of implementation strategies, terminology used to name strategies, and time required to tailor strategies all may contribute to delays in translating evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice. To speed EBI translation, we propose a streamlined approach to classifying and tailoring implementation strategies.

MAIN TEXT

A multidisciplinary team of eight scholars conducted an exercise to sort the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies into three classes: implementation processes (n = 25), capacity-building strategies (n = 20), and integration strategies (n = 28). Implementation processes comprise best practices that apply across EBIs and throughout the phases of implementation from exploration through sustainment (e.g., conduct local needs assessment). Capacity-building strategies target either general or EBI-specific knowledge and skills (e.g., conduct educational meetings). Integration strategies include "methods and techniques" that target barriers or facilitators to implementation of a specific EBI beyond those targeted by capacity building. Building on these three classes, the team collaboratively developed recommendations for a pragmatic, five-step approach that begins with the implementation processes and capacity-building strategies practice-settings are already using prior to tailoring integration strategies. A case study is provided to illustrate use of the five-step approach to tailor the strategies needed to implement a transitional care intervention in skilled nursing facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Our proposed approach streamlines the formative work required prior to implementing an EBI by building on practice partner preferences, expertise, and infrastructure while also making the most of prior research findings.

Building Capacity for Pragmatic Trials of Digital Technology in Primary Care

Frontline primary care teams face important challenges in seeking to transform the quality of care delivered to patients and to reduce clerical burden for clinicians. Digital technologies using artificial intelligence hold substantial promise to aid in this transformation. Both pragmatic clinical trials and implementation science are key tools to successfully introduce, evaluate, and sustain innovations in real-world primary care practices. Previous articles in this thematic series have provided an in-depth overview of pragmatic trials and implementation science. This paper demonstrates and provides a framework for how these concepts, together with digital transformation, can be used to solve many of the challenges facing primary care. This framework is conceived as the collaboration of frontline primary care teams with innovators in academic institutions and industry through pragmatic trials and implementation science.

Factors facilitating the implementation of a clinical decision support system in primary care practices: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Understanding how to implement innovations in primary care practices is key to improve primary health care. Aiming to contribute to this understanding, we investigate the implementation of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) as part of the innovation fund project AdAM (01NVF16006). Originating from complexity theory, the practice change and development model (PCD) proposes several interdependent factors that enable organizational-level change and thus accounts for the complex settings of primary care practices. Leveraging the PCD, we seek to answer the following research questions: Which combinations of internal and external factors based on the PCD contribute to successful implementation in primary care practices? Given these results, how can implementation in the primary care setting be improved?

METHODS

We analyzed the joint contributions of internal and external factors on implementation success using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). QCA is a set-theoretic approach that allows to identify configurations of multiple factors that lead to one outcome (here: successful implementation of a CDSS in primary care practices). Using survey data, we conducted our analysis based on a sample of 224 primary care practices.

RESULTS

We identified two configurations of internal and external factors that likewise enable successful implementation. The first configuration enables implementation based on a combination of Strong Inside Motivation, High Capability for Development, and Strong Outside Motivation; the second configuration based on a combination of Strong Inside Motivators, Many Options for Development and the absence of High Capability for Development.

CONCLUSION

In line with the PCD, our results demonstrate the importance of the combination of internal and external factors for implementation outcomes. Moreover, the two identified configurations show that different ways exist to achieve successful implementation in primary care practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

AdAM was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03430336 ) on February 6, 2018.

A scoping review of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks - an appraisal of purpose, characteristics, usability, applicability, and testability

BACKGROUND

A proliferation of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) have been developed in the implementation science field to facilitate the implementation process. The basic features of these TMFs have been identified by several reviews. However, systematic appraisals on the quality of these TMFs are inadequate. To fill this gap, this study aimed to assess the usability, applicability, and testability of the current TMFs in a structured way.

METHODS

A scoping review method was employed. Electronic databases were searched to locate English and Chinese articles published between January 2000 and April 2022. Search terms were specific to implementation science. Additionally, hand searches were administered to identify articles from related reviews. Purpose and characteristics such as the type of TMF, analytical level, and observation unit were extracted. Structured appraisal criteria were adapted from Birken et al.'s Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST) to conduct an in-depth analysis of the TMFs' usability, applicability, and testability.

RESULTS

A total of 143 TMFs were included in this analysis. Among them, the most common purpose was to identify barriers and facilitators. Most TMFs applied the descriptive method to summarize the included constructs or the prescriptive method to propose courses of implementation actions. TMFs were mainly mid-range theories built on existing conceptual frameworks or demonstrated grand theories. The usability of the TMFs needs to be improved in terms of the provision of conceptually matched strategies to barriers and facilitators and instructions on the TMFs usage. Regarding the applicability, little attention was paid to the constructs of macro-level context, stages of scale-up and sustainability, and implementation outcomes like feasibility, cost, and penetration. Also, fewer TMFs could propose recommended research and measurement methods to apply the TMFs. Lastly, explicit hypotheses or propositions were lacking in most of the TMFs, and empirical evidence was lacking to support the claimed mechanisms between framework elements in testability.

CONCLUSIONS

Common limitations were found in the usability, application, and testability of the current TMFs. The findings of this review could provide insights for developers of TMFs for future theoretical advancements.

Assessing the use of constructs from the consolidated framework for implementation research in U.S. rural cancer screening promotion programs: a systematic search and scoping review

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening is suboptimal in rural areas, and interventions are needed to improve uptake. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a widely-used implementation science framework to optimize planning and delivery of evidence-based interventions, which may be particularly useful for screening promotion in rural areas. We examined the discussion of CFIR-defined domains and constructs in programs to improve cancer screening in rural areas.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of research databases (e.g., Medline, CINAHL) to identify studies (published through November 2022) of cancer screening promotion programs delivered in rural areas in the United States. We identified 166 records, and 15 studies were included. Next, two reviewers used a standardized abstraction tool to conduct a critical scoping review of CFIR constructs in rural cancer screening promotion programs.

RESULTS

Each study reported at least some CFIR domains and constructs, but studies varied in how they were reported. Broadly, constructs from the domains of Process, Intervention, and Outer setting were commonly reported, but constructs from the domains of Inner setting and Individuals were less commonly reported. The most common constructs were planning (100% of studies reporting), followed by adaptability, cosmopolitanism, and reflecting and evaluating (86.7% for each). No studies reported tension for change, self-efficacy, or opinion leader.

CONCLUSIONS

Leveraging CFIR in the planning and delivery of cancer screening promotion programs in rural areas can improve program implementation. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of underutilized CFIR domains, i.e., Inner setting and Individuals, on cancer screening programs.

The TRIBE model: How socioemotional processes fuel end-of-life treatment in the United States

Prior interventions have repeatedly failed to decrease the prescription and receipt of treatments and procedures that confer more harm than benefit at the End-of-Life (EoL); new approaches to intervention are needed. Ideally, future interventions would be informed by a social-ecological conceptual model that explains EoL healthcare utilization patterns, but current models ignore two facts: (1) healthcare is an inherently social activity, involving clinical teams and patients' social networks, and (2) emotions influence social activity. To address these omissions, we scaffolded Terror Management Theory and Socioemotional Selectivity Theory to create the Transtheoretical Model of Irrational Biomedical Exuberance (TRIBE). Based on Terror Management Theory, TRIBE suggests that the prospect of patient death motivates healthcare teams to conform to a biomedical norm of care, even when clinicians believe that biomedical interventions will likely be unhelpful. Based on Socioemotional Selectivity Theory, TRIBE suggests that the prospect of dwindling time motivates families to prioritize emotional goals, and leads patients to consent to disease-directed treatments they know will likely be unhelpful, as moral emotions motivate deference to the perceived emotional needs of their loved ones. TRIBE is unique among models of healthcare utilization in its acknowledgement that moral emotions and processes (e.g., shame, compassion, regret-avoidance) influence healthcare delivery, patients' interactions with family members, and patients' outcomes. TRIBE is especially relevant to potentially harmful EoL care in the United States, and it also offers insights into the epidemics of overtreatment in healthcare settings worldwide. By outlining the role of socioemotional processes in the care of persons with serious conditions, TRIBE underscores the critical need for psychological innovation in interventions, health policy and research on healthcare utilization.

Implementation and Qualitative Evaluation of a Primary Care Redesign Model with Expanded Scope of Work for Medical Assistants

BACKGROUND

Implementation of primary care models involving expanded scope of work and redesigned workflows for medical assistants (MAs) as primary care team members can be challenging. Implementation strategies and participatory evaluation informed by implementation science frameworks may inform organizational decisions about model scale-up and sustainment.

OBJECTIVE

This paper reports implementation strategies and qualitative evaluation of a primary care redesign (PCR) model implementation that included an expanded scope of work for MAs.

DESIGN

Qualitative evaluation of implementation strategies and clinician and staff experience with implementation of PCR using semi-structured key informant interviews. The evaluation was guided by the RE-AIM framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-nine clinicians, staff, practice leaders, and administrators from 7 primary care practices (4 general internal medicine, 3 family medicine) implementing PCR.

INTERVENTIONS

The PCR model included enhanced rooming and documentation support. The health system used multiple strategies to implement PCR, including rapid improvement events, changing clinic space configurations, developing electronic health record templates and performance dashboards, and practice coaching.

APPROACH

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the RE-AIM evaluation and planning framework guided development of semi-structured interview guides. A deductive, structural coding approach was used for analysis.

KEY RESULTS

PCR implementation was facilitated by clear communication about the intervention source, mechanisms for feedback about model goals, and physical environments and electronic health record (EHR) systems that supported the added staff and modified clinic workflow. Clinicians and staff benefited from the ability to see the model in action prior to go-live and opportunities for consistent provider-MA pairings.

CONCLUSIONS

The PCR model can support achieving the Quadruple Aim when fully implemented with paired MAs and clinicians who are well prepared to follow redesigned workflows and function as a team. Implementation can be effectively supported by a participatory evaluation guided by implementation science frameworks.

A framework to support the progressive implementation of integrated team-based care for the management of COPD: a collective case study

Background

In Canada, there is widespread agreement about the need for integrated models of team-based care. However, there is less agreement on how to support the scale-up and spread of successful models, and there is limited empirical evidence to support this process in chronic disease management. We studied the supporting and mitigating factors required to successfully implement and scale-up an integrated model of team-based care in primary care.

Methods

We conducted a collective case study using multiple methods of data collection including interviews, document analysis, living documents, and a focus group. Our study explored a team-based model of care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) known as Best Care COPD (BCC) that has been implemented in primary care settings across Southwestern Ontario. BCC is a quality improvement initiative that was developed to enhance the quality of care for patients with COPD. Participants included healthcare providers involved in the delivery of the BCC program.

Results

We identified several mechanisms influencing the scale-up and spread of BCC and categorized them as Foundational (e.g., evidence-based program, readiness to implement, peer-led implementation team), Transformative (adaptive process, empowerment and collaboration, embedded evaluation), and Enabling Mechanisms (provider training, administrative support, role clarity, patient outcomes). Based on these results, we developed a framework to inform the progressive implementation of integrated, team-based care for chronic disease management. Our framework builds off our empirical work and is framed by local contextual factors.

Conclusions

This study explores the implementation and spread of integrated team-based care in a primary care setting. Despite the study’s focus on COPD, we believe the findings can be applied in other chronic disease contexts. We provide a framework to support the progressive implementation of integrated team-based care for chronic disease management.

Application of community - engaged dissemination and implementation science to improve health equity

Community engagement is critical to accelerate and improve implementation of evidence-based interventions to reduce health inequities. Community-engaged dissemination and implementation research (CEDI) emphasizes engaging stakeholders (e.g., community members, practitioners, community organizations, etc.) with diverse perspectives, experience, and expertise to provide tacit community knowledge regarding the local context, priorities, needs, and assets. Importantly, CEDI can help improve health inequities through incorporating unique perspectives from communities experiencing health inequities that have historically been left out of the research process. The community-engagement process that exists in practice can be highly variable, and characteristics of the process are often underreported, making it difficult to discern how engagement of community partners was used to improve implementation. This paper describes the community-engagement process for a multilevel, pragmatic randomized trial to increase the reach and impact of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatment among Community Health Center patients; describes how engagement activities and the resulting partnership informed the development of implementation strategies and improved the research process; and presents lessons learned to inform future CEDI research.

Improving Quality Improvement Capacity and Clinical Performance in Small Primary Care Practices

PURPOSE

We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance.

RESULTS

Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months.

Aligning implementation science with improvement practice: a call to action

Background

In several recent articles, authors have called for aligning the fields of implementation and improvement science. In this paper, we call for implementation science to also align with improvement practice. Multiple implementation scholars have highlighted the importance of designing implementation strategies to fit the existing culture, infrastructure, and practice of a healthcare system. Worldwide, healthcare systems are adopting improvement models as their primary approach to improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. The prevalence of improvement models raises the question of how implementation scientists might best align their efforts with healthcare systems’ existing improvement infrastructure and practice.

Main body

We describe three challenges and five benefits to aligning implementation science and improvement practice. Challenges include (1) use of different models, terminology, and methods, (2) a focus on generalizable versus local knowledge, and (3) limited evidence in support of the effectiveness of improvement tools and methods. We contend that implementation science needs to move beyond these challenges and work toward greater alignment with improvement practice. Aligning with improvement practice would benefit implementation science by (1) strengthening research/practice partnerships, (2) fostering local ownership of implementation, (3) generating practice-based evidence, (4) developing context-specific implementation strategies, and (5) building practice-level capacity to implement interventions and improve care. Each of these potential benefits is illustrated in a case study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network.

Conclusion

To effectively integrate evidence-based interventions into routine practice, implementation scientists need to align their efforts with the improvement culture and practice that is driving change within healthcare systems worldwide. This paper provides concrete examples of how researchers have aligned implementation science with improvement practice across five implementation projects.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-021-00201-1.

Place Matters: Closing the Gap on Rural Primary Care Quality Improvement Capacity-the Healthy Hearts Northwest Study

CONTEXT

To compare rural independent and health system primary care practices with urban practices to external practice facilitation support in terms of recruitment, readiness, engagement, retention, and change in quality improvement (QI) capacity and quality metric performance.

METHODS

The setting consisted of 135 small or medium-sized primary care practices participating in the Healthy Hearts Northwest quality improvement initiative. The practices were stratified by geography, rural or urban, and by ownership (independent [physician-owned] or system-owned [health/hospital system]). The quality improvement capacity assessment (QICA) survey tool was used to measure QI at baseline and after 12 months of practice facilitation. Changes in 3 clinical quality measures (CQMs)-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control, and tobacco use screening and cessation-were measured at baseline in 2015 and follow-up in 2017.

RESULTS

Rural practices were more likely to enroll in the study, with 1 out of 3.5 rural recruited practices enrolled, compared with 1 out of 7 urban practices enrolled. Rural independent practices had the lowest QI capacity at baseline, making the largest gain in establishing a regular QI process involving cross-functional teams. Rural independent practices made the greatest improvement in meeting the BP control CQM, from 55.5% to 66.1% (P ≤ .001) and the smoking cessation metric, from 72.3% to 86.7% (P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Investing practice facilitation and sustained QI strategies in rural independent practices, where the need is high and resources are low, will yield benefits that outweigh centrally prescribed models.

Making It Work: Physicians' Perspectives on the Rapid Transition to Telemedicine

Background: Telemedicine is a major pillar in the health care system's response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the rapid implementation of telemedicine is not without its challenges. We examined the strategies primary care physicians (PCPs) used to make the transition to telemedicine during the pandemic. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted to explore the perspectives of PCPs working at a Midwestern Academic Medical Center (AMC) who used telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semistructured interviews with 20 PCPs were conducted 3 months following the rapid increase in the use of telemedicine across the AMC. Interview questions asked about physicians' challenges using telemedicine, the changes they had to make to use telemedicine, and what had helped them deliver care through telemedicine. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and rigorously analyzed using deductive thematic analysis. Results: According to PCPs, a successful transition to telemedicine involved three key elements: (1) maintaining flexibility in the context of constant change; (2) recognizing the need to upgrade their home office spaces; and (3) seeking opportunities to continue collaborating and sharing knowledge with peers. These strategies enabled physicians to rapidly pivot to deliver care through telemedicine when stay-at-home orders took effect. Physicians also described how frequent leadership communication and the rapid dissemination of telemedicine training supported their use of this care modality. Conclusions: Successful adoption of telemedicine requires that physicians adapt their care delivery practices. Considering these facilitators of telemedicine use can help both physicians and health care organizations with this important transition.

Standardization vs Customization: Finding the Right Balance

There is an inherent tension between standardization and customization of care delivery processes. The challenge for health care systems is to achieve the right balance. At its best, standardized work can create efficiencies that generate the additional time needed for personalized care. Similarly, at its best, customization allows the people within a system to accommodate the needs, preferences, and circumstances of the unique individuals and local communities they serve. We provide examples and offer principles to decide when standardization offers the most successful path and when customization may be preferred. We believe that, in sum, the balance has shifted too far toward standardization and that a rebalancing toward customization will benefit patients, clinicians, and the health care system.

Steps towards implementing evidence-based screening in family medicine in Ukraine: SWOT-analysis of an approach of multidimensional empowerment

Background

The purpose of this study is to forward the implementation of an operational evidence-based state screening program of common diseases in Ukraine, where currently no state-based and evidence-based screening (EBS) exists. EBS should be performed by Family Doctors in a primary care setting and concern prevalent diseases in adults, such as: obesity (BMI), hypertension (BP measurement), diabetes (glycaemia), dyslipidemia (cholesterol/lipids), colon cancer (FOBT/colonoscopy), breast cancer (mammography), STIs (chlamydia, syphilis), HIV, HBV, HCV (i.e. serology or other rapid tests), HPV (swabs), cervical cancer (test Pap). depression (i.e., PHQ-9), and smoking (i.e., Fagerstrom).

Methods

Four needs-based research actions were led among citizens and healthcare professionals, based on multidimensional empowerment. Internal Strengths and Weaknesses of the ongoing implementation process were identified through these studies, whereas external Opportunities and Threats were determined by the present socio-cultural and political context. This SWOT analysis is likely to guide future state-based initiatives to accomplish EBS implementation in Ukraine.

Results

Internal Strengths are the bottom-up multidimensional empowerment approach, teaching of EBS and the development of an internet-based platform “Screening adviser” to assist shared decision making for person-centred EBS programs. Internal Weaknesses identified for the Family Doctors are a heterogeneous screening and the risk of decreasing motivation to screen. External Opportunities include the ongoing PHC reform, the existent WONCA and WHO support, and the existence of EBS programs in Europe. External Threats are the lack of national guidelines, not fully introduced gate keeping system, the vulnerable socio-economic situation, the war situation in the East of Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

We started EBS implementation through research actions, based on a multidimensional empowerment of citizens, HCP and in EBS pathways involved stakeholder teams, to foster a sustainable operational human resource to get involved in that new EBS pathway to implement. The presented SWOT-analysis of this ongoing implementation process allows to plan and optimize future steps towards a state based and supports EBS program in Ukraine.

Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice

Background

Recent reviews of the use and application of implementation frameworks in implementation efforts highlight the limited use of frameworks, despite the value in doing so. As such, this article aims to provide recommendations to enhance the application of implementation frameworks, for implementation researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners.

Discussion

Ideally, an implementation framework, or multiple frameworks should be used prior to and throughout an implementation effort. This includes both in implementation science research studies and in real-world implementation projects. To guide this application, outlined are ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks across the implementation process. The recommendations have been written in the rough chronological order of an implementation effort; however, we understand these may vary depending on the project or context: (1) select a suitable framework(s), (2) establish and maintain community stakeholder engagement and partnerships, (3) define issue and develop research or evaluation questions and hypotheses, (4) develop an implementation mechanistic process model or logic model, (5) select research and evaluation methods (6) determine implementation factors/determinants, (7) select and tailor, or develop, implementation strategy(s), (8) specify implementation outcomes and evaluate implementation, (9) use a framework(s) at micro level to conduct and tailor implementation, and (10) write the proposal and report. Ideally, a framework(s) would be applied to each of the recommendations. For this article, we begin by discussing each recommendation within the context of frameworks broadly, followed by specific examples using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework.

Summary

The use of conceptual and theoretical frameworks provides a foundation from which generalizable implementation knowledge can be advanced. On the contrary, superficial use of frameworks hinders being able to use, learn from, and work sequentially to progress the field. Following the provided ten recommendations, we hope to assist researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners to improve the use of implementation science frameworks.

Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice

BACKGROUND

Recent reviews of the use and application of implementation frameworks in implementation efforts highlight the limited use of frameworks, despite the value in doing so. As such, this article aims to provide recommendations to enhance the application of implementation frameworks, for implementation researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners.

DISCUSSION

Ideally, an implementation framework, or multiple frameworks should be used prior to and throughout an implementation effort. This includes both in implementation science research studies and in real-world implementation projects. To guide this application, outlined are ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks across the implementation process. The recommendations have been written in the rough chronological order of an implementation effort; however, we understand these may vary depending on the project or context: (1) select a suitable framework(s), (2) establish and maintain community stakeholder engagement and partnerships, (3) define issue and develop research or evaluation questions and hypotheses, (4) develop an implementation mechanistic process model or logic model, (5) select research and evaluation methods (6) determine implementation factors/determinants, (7) select and tailor, or develop, implementation strategy(s), (8) specify implementation outcomes and evaluate implementation, (9) use a framework(s) at micro level to conduct and tailor implementation, and (10) write the proposal and report. Ideally, a framework(s) would be applied to each of the recommendations. For this article, we begin by discussing each recommendation within the context of frameworks broadly, followed by specific examples using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework.

SUMMARY

The use of conceptual and theoretical frameworks provides a foundation from which generalizable implementation knowledge can be advanced. On the contrary, superficial use of frameworks hinders being able to use, learn from, and work sequentially to progress the field. Following the provided ten recommendations, we hope to assist researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners to improve the use of implementation science frameworks.