Theorizing is for everybody: Advancing the process of theorizing in implementation science

A research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms

BACKGROUND

Implementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms-the processes responsible for change-is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.

METHOD

Building on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: "What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?" The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.

RESULTS

From this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

This research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.

Bridges and Mechanisms: Integrating Systems Science Thinking into Implementation Research

We present a detailed argument for how to integrate, or bridge, systems science thinking and methods with implementation science. We start by showing how fundamental systems science principles of structure, dynamics, information, and utility are relevant for implementation science. Then we examine the need for implementation science to develop and apply richer theories of complex systems. This can be accomplished by emphasizing a causal mechanisms approach. Identifying causal mechanisms focuses on the "cogs and gears" of public health, clinical, and organizational interventions. A mechanisms approach focuses on how a specific strategy will produce the implementation outcome. We show how connecting systems science to implementation science opens new opportunities for examining and addressing social determinants of health and conducting equitable and ethical implementation research. Finally, we present case studies illustrating successful applications of systems science within implementation science in community health policy, tobacco control, health care access, and breast cancer screening.

The core functions and forms paradigm throughout EPIS: designing and implementing an evidence-based practice with function fidelity

There are numerous frameworks for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) in novel settings to achieve "fidelity." However, identifying appropriate referents for fidelity poses a challenge. The Core Functions and Forms paradigm offers a model that can inform adaptation decisions throughout all phases of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. We applied the Core Functions-Forms paradigm throughout the Exploration and Preparation phases of EPIS in the design of two EBPs targeting family protective factors among Latinos in San Diego, as well as describe plans for its use in Implementation and Sustainment. We employed a distinct approach for each intervention element to contrast adaptation decisions that prioritize adherence to either form or function fidelity. We describe our application of the functions-forms paradigm within the EPIS framework, focusing on the Preparation phase. We also provide functions-forms matrices that map out the relationship between individual intervention components (forms) and the essential processes (functions) by which components are theorized to exert their impact. This case study of how the core functions-forms framework can be mapped onto EPIS can support a conceptual shift from prioritizing form fidelity to also focusing on function fidelity. This might allow interventionists to target appropriate fidelity referents when adapting an EBP, rather than defaulting to maintaining fidelity to forms as described in the protocol. We see great promise for using this framework for guiding actions throughout all EPIS phases and informing future applications of this paradigm to foster more robust fidelity to function.