Search

BackgroundImplementation 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.MethodBuilding 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.ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

BackgroundImplementation science frameworks situate intervention implementation and sustainment within the context of the implementing organization and system. Aspects of organizational context such as leadership have been defined and measured largely within US health care settings characterized by decentralization and individual autonomy. The relevance of these constructs in other settings may be limited by differences like collectivist orientation, resource constraints, and hierarchical power structures. We aimed to adapt measures of organizational context in South African primary care clinics.MethodsWe convened a panel of South African experts in social science and HIV care delivery and presented implementation domains informed by existing frameworks and prior work in South Africa. Based on panel input, we selected contextual domains and adapted candidate items. We conducted cognitive interviews with 25 providers in KwaZulu-Natal Province to refine measures. We then conducted a cross-sectional survey of 16 clinics with 5-20 providers per clinic (N = 186). We assessed reliability using Cronbach's alpha and calculated interrater agreement (awg) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) at the clinic level. Within clinics with moderate agreement, we calculated correlation of clinic-level measures with each other and with hypothesized predictors - staff continuity and infrastructure - and a clinical outcome, patient retention on antiretroviral therapy.ResultsPanelists emphasized contextual factors; we therefore focused on elements of clinic leadership, stress, cohesion, and collective problem solving (critical consciousness). Cognitive interviews confirmed salience of the domains and improved item clarity. After excluding items related to leaders' coordination abilities due to missingness and low agreement, all other scales demonstrated individual-level reliability and at least moderate interrater agreement in most facilities. ICC was low for most leadership measures and moderate for others. Measures tended to correlate within facility, and higher stress was significantly correlated with lower staff continuity. Organizational context was generally more positively rated in facilities that showed consistent agreement.ConclusionsAs theorized, organizational context is important in understanding program implementation within the South African health system. Most adapted measures show good reliability at individual and clinic levels. Additional revision of existing frameworks to suit this context and further testing in high and low performing clinics is warranted.

: Introduction: Pharmacy‐delivered HIV prevention services might create more options for pregnant women to use HIV prevention tools earlier and more consistently during pregnancy. We quantified preferences for attributes of potential HIV prevention services among women of childbearing age in Western Kenya. Methods: From June to November 2023, we administered a face‐to‐face discrete choice experiment survey to women aged 15–44 in Kenya's Homa Bay, Kisumu and Siaya counties. The survey evaluated preferences for HIV prevention services, described by seven attributes: service location, travel time, type of HIV test, sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, partner HIV testing, pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and service fee. Participants answered a series of 12‐choice questions. Each question asked them to select one of two service options or no services—an opt‐out option. We used hierarchical Bayesian modelling levels to estimate each attribute level's coefficient and understand how attributes influenced service choice. Results: Overall, 599 participants completed the survey, among whom the median age was 23 years (IQR: 18–27); 33% were married, 20% had a job and worked regularly, and 52% had been pregnant before. Participants, on average, strongly preferred having any HIV prevention service option over none (opt‐out preference weight: −5.84 [95% CI: −5.97, −5.72]). The most important attributes were the availability of PrEP (relative importance 27.04% [95% CI: 25.98%, 28.11%]), followed by STI testing (relative importance 20.26% [95% CI: 19.52%, 21.01%]) and partner HIV testing (relative importance: 16.35% [95% CI: 15.79%, 16.90%]). While, on average, participants preferred obtaining services at the clinic more than pharmacies, women prioritized the availability of PrEP, STI testing and partner HIV testing more than the location or cost. Conclusions: These findings suggest the importance of providing comprehensive HIV prevention services and ensuring PrEP, STI testing and partner HIV testing are available. If pharmacies can offer these services, women are likely to access those services at pharmacies even if they prefer clinics., INTRODUCTION Pharmacy‐delivered HIV prevention services are creating more options for care among priority populations globally [1–3]. These services could accelerate progress towards reducing HIV incidence, especially among women of childbearing [...]

: 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., INTRODUCTION African adolescent girls and young women (AGYW), ages 18–25 years, face HIV incidence rates of 4–7 per 100 person years [1–3]. Adolescence is a critical time for the onset [...]

: Introduction: Implementation science (IS) offers methods to systematically achieve the Ending the HIV Epidemic goals in the United States, as well as the global UNAIDS targets. Federal funders such as the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) have invested in implementation research to achieve these goals, including supporting the AIDS Research Centres (ARCs), which focus on high‐impact science in HIV and mental health (MH). To facilitate capacity building for the HIV/MH research workforce in IS, “grey areas,” or areas of IS that are confusing, particularly for new investigators, should be addressed in the context of HIV/MH research. Discussion: A group of IS experts affiliated with NIMH‐funded ARCs convened to identify common and challenging grey areas. The group generated a preliminary list of 19 grey areas in HIV/MH‐related IS. From the list, the authors developed a survey which was distributed to all ARCs to prioritize grey areas to address in this paper. ARC members across the United States (N = 60) identified priority grey areas requiring clarification. This commentary discusses topics with 40% or more endorsement. The top grey areas that ARC members identified were: (1) Differentiating implementation strategies from interventions; (2) Determining when an intervention has sufficient evidence for adaptation; (3) Integrating recipient perspectives into HIV/MH implementation research; (4) Evaluating whether an implementation strategy is evidence‐based; (5) Identifying rigorous approaches for evaluating the impact of implementation strategies in the absence of a control group or randomization; and (6) Addressing innovation in HIV/MH IS grants. The commentary addresses each grey area by drawing from the existing literature (when available), providing expert guidance on addressing each in the context of HIV/MH research, and providing domestic and global HIV and HIV/MH case examples that address these grey areas. Conclusions: HIV/MH IS is key to achieving domestic and international goals for ending HIV transmission and mitigating its impact. Guidance offered in this paper can help to overcome challenges to rigorous and high‐impact HIV/MH implementation research., INTRODUCTION Implementation science (IS), defined by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as “the scientific study of the use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence‐based health interventions (EBIs),” offers [...]

This article explores the need to reevaluate policy implementation science in a global context, particularly in low-resource settings in the Global South. It highlights the limitations of existing frameworks, which are often based on Global North perspectives and may not be applicable to diverse settings. The article suggests incorporating traditional implementation science and political science theories to develop more effective frameworks that consider power dynamics and stakeholder collaboration. It also emphasizes the importance of adapting universal health coverage policies to fit different governance structures and resource contexts. The text includes case studies from Pakistan and Rwanda to illustrate the importance of tailoring policies to local contexts. The authors argue for refining policy implementation science frameworks to address these issues and promote evidence-based policymaking in global health. The article provides a list of references that offer valuable insights and research findings for library patrons conducting research on related topics. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Opinion leadership, educational outreach visiting, and innovation championing are commonly used strategies to address barriers to implementing innovations and evidence-based practices in healthcare settings. Despite voluminous research, ambiguities persist in how these strategies work and under what conditions they work well, work poorly, or work at all. The current paper develops middle-range theories to address this gap. Methods: Conceptual articles, systematic reviews, and empirical studies informed the development of causal pathway diagrams (CPDs). CPDs are visualization tools for depicting and theorizing about the causal process through which strategies operate, including the mechanisms they activate, the barriers they address, and the proximal and distal outcomes they produce. CPDs also clarify the contextual conditions (i.e., preconditions and moderators) that influence whether, and to what extent, the strategy's causal process unfolds successfully. Expert panels of implementation scientists and health professionals rated the plausibility of these preliminary CPDs and offered comments and suggestions on them. Findings: Theoretically, opinion leadership addresses potential adopters' uncertainty about likely consequences of innovation use (determinant) by promoting positive attitude formation about the innovation (mechanism), which results in an adoption decision (proximal outcome), which leads to innovation use (intermediate outcome). As this causal process repeats, penetration, or spread of innovation use, occurs (distal outcome). Educational outreach visiting addresses knowledge barriers, attitudinal barriers, and behavioral barriers (determinants) by promoting critical thinking and reflection about evidence and practice (mechanism), which results in behavioral intention (proximal outcome), behavior change (intermediate outcome), and fidelity, or guideline adherence (distal outcome). Innovation championing addresses organizational inertia, indifference, and resistance (determinants) by promoting buy-in to the vision, fostering a positive implementation climate, and increasing collective efficacy (mechanisms), which leads to participation in implementation activities (proximal outcome), initial use of the innovation with increasing skill (intermediate outcome) and, ultimately, greater penetration and fidelity (distal outcomes). Experts found the preliminary CPDs plausible or highly plausible and suggested additional mechanisms, moderators, and preconditions, which were used to amend the initial CPD. Discussion: The middle-range theories depicted in the CPDs furnish testable propositions for implementation research and offer guidance for selecting, designing, and evaluating these social influence implementation strategies in both research studies and practice settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessing barriers before implementing an evidence-based practice can increase the chances of successful implementation. This project evaluated measures of intervention characteristics that could affect implementation: evidence strength and quality; relative advantage; adaptability; trialability; complexity; design quality and packaging; perceived cost; compatibility; observability; risk; and burden. Measures (109 items total) for each intervention characteristic were developed in a previous study, using prior measures, and expert feedback. Measures were scored such that higher scores meant a more positive view. Healthcare personnel implementing a new practice (n = 175) completed two surveys, 1 month apart. Participants completed the intervention characteristic item banks and questions on the use of the evidence-based practice. Reliability and validity were assessed for each item bank. All measures had Cronbach's alphas over 0.7 (range: 0.700–0.932) indicating good reliability. Frequent users of the practice reported better levels of each determinant at the first (Cohen's d range: −0.239 to −0.687) and second surveys (Cohen's d range: −0.043 to −1.081) except for costs (0.096) with use on the second survey. This preliminary test of measures to assess determinants of implementing evidence-based practice supports the validity and reliability of these tools. Additional studies are needed to further test the psychometric properties of the measures and develop short forms of each intervention characteristic measure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poor communication within healthcare teams occurs commonly, contributing to inefficiency, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. Interprofessional bedside rounds (IBR) are a promising model that brings two or more health professions together with patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to investigate the breadth and quality of IBR literature to identify and describe gaps and opportunities for future research. We followed an adapted Arksey and O'Malley Framework and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for key IBR words and concepts through June 2020. Seventy-nine articles met inclusion criteria and underwent data abstraction. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Publications in this field have increased since 2014, and the majority of studies reported positive impacts of IBR implementation across an array of team, patient, and care quality/delivery outcomes. Despite the preponderance of positive findings, great heterogeneity, and a reliance on quantitative non-randomized study designs remain in the extant research. A growing number of interventions to improve safety, quality, and care experiences in hospital settings focus on redesigning daily inpatient rounds. Limited information on IBR characteristics and implementation strategies coupled with widespread variation in terminology, study quality, and design create challenges in assessing the effectiveness of models of rounds and optimal implementation strategies. This scoping review highlights the need for additional studies of rounding models, implementation strategies, and outcomes that facilitate comparative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2019, nearly 14 million colonoscopies were performed in the United States.1 In these settings, the accepted practice is that a responsible person drives and chaperones patients home after receiving procedural sedation, including colonoscopy.2 Lack of access to transportation and/or a chaperone is a persistent barrier to care in safety-net health systems and federally qualified health centers as a result of lower incomes, underinsurance, and higher social needs.3 Given racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in many digestive diseases that require colonoscopy for diagnosis and management, innovative solutions are needed to overcome logistical barriers to colonoscopy completion, especially in these settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The delayed and modest uptake of evidence-based treatments following cardiovascular clinical trials highlights the need for greater attention to implementation early in the development and testing of treatments. However, implementation science is not well understood and is often an afterthought following phase 3 trials. In this review, we describe the goals, frameworks, and methods of implementation science, along with common multilevel barriers and facilitators of implementation. We propose that some of the approaches used for implementation well after a trial has ended can be incorporated into the design of phase 3 trials to foster early post-trial implementation. Approaches include, but are not limited to, engaging broad stakeholders including patients, clinicians, and decision-makers in trial advisory boards; using less restrictive eligibility criteria that ensure both internal validity and generalizability; having trial protocols reviewed by regulators; integrating trial execution with the health care system; evaluating and addressing barriers and facilitators to deployment of the intervention; and undertaking cost-effectiveness and cost utility analyses across jurisdictions. We provide case examples to highlight concepts and to guide end-of-trial implementation. • Cardiovascular disease remains inadequately treated, highlighting the need for greater attention to implementation science. • Trialists and clinicians could harness key principles of implementation science to foster better end-of-trial uptake. • Phase 3 trials could use less restrictive eligibility criteria, engage broad stakeholders in trial design, use existing health care systems to execute the trial, evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementation, and improve workflow processes within the trial. • When trial results are positive, trial sites could be engaged in early implementation research and deployment of the intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Somali American individuals have lower cervical cancer screening rates than the U.S. general population. Offering HPV self-sampling in primary care clinics could increase screening rates in Somali American individuals by addressing screening barriers., Methods: The Isbaar Project is a Hybrid Type 2 effectiveness-implementation study of a patient-centered, culturally tailored HPV self-sampling intervention for Somali American individuals. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Social Cognitive Theory, we conducted focus groups with Somali American individuals, and interviews with clinicians and clinic staff to inform refinement and development of implementation strategies. HPV self-sampling was then implemented as a usual care screening option at 3 community-based primary care clinics in Minneapolis, Minnesota in February 2023. The primary objective is to assess the effect of implementing in-clinic HPV self-sampling on screening completion in Somali American individuals. The secondary objective is to assess the effect of implementing HPV self-sampling on screening completion in all patients. Using difference-in-difference methods, we will evaluate changes in screening rates one-year pre and post implementation and compare changes with control clinics followed over the same time period. Using RE-AIM, we will conduct a post-implementation mixed methods analysis of processes and strategies needed to successfully implement HPV self-sampling in primary care., Conclusions: The study was designed to evaluate a real-world in-clinic HPV self-sampling intervention for Somali American individuals, generating data on both effectiveness and implementation applicable to other community-based clinics in the U.S. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale and design of the study., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To identify primary care structures and processes that have the highest and lowest impact on chronic disease management and screening and prevention outcomes as well as to assess the feasibility of implementing these structures and processes into practice., Design: A two-round Delphi study was conducted to establish consensus on the impact and feasibility of 258 primary care structures and processes., Participants: 29 primary care providers, health system leaders and health services researchers in the USA., Outcomes: Primary outcomes were (1) consensus on the impact of each structure and process on chronic disease management and screening and prevention outcomes, separately and (2) consensus on feasibility of implementation by primary care practices., Results: Consensus on high impact and feasibility of implementation was reached on four items for chronic disease management: 'Providers use motivational interviewing to help patients set goals', 'Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel', 'Practice has onsite providers or staff that speak the most dominant, non-English language spoken by patients' and 'Practice includes mental health providers and/or behavioural health specialists in care team' and seven items for screening and prevention: 'Practice utilizes standing protocols and orders', 'Practice generates reports to alert clinicians to missed targets and to identify gaps in care, such as overdue visits, needed vaccinations, screenings or other preventive services', 'Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel', 'Practice sets performance goals and uses benchmarking to track quality of care', 'Practice uses performance feedback to identify practice-specific areas of improvement', 'Practice builds quality improvement activities into practice operations' and 'Pre-visit planning data are reviewed during daily huddles'. Only 'Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel' appeared on both lists., Conclusion: Findings suggest that practices need to focus on implementing mostly distinct, rather than common, structures and processes to optimise chronic disease and preventive care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The World Health Organization recommends a single-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination schedule for girls and boys to accelerate progress toward cervical cancer elimination. We applied the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) within the context of HPV vaccination to assess the acceptability of a single-dose schedule among health-care professionals in Kenya., Methods: A REDCap survey was developed using relevant Theoretical Framework of Acceptability domains and validated with health-care professionals. Descriptive analyses and multivariate Poisson regression were conducted to assess factors associated with increased acceptability. Free-text responses were analyzed using a rapid qualitative approach, and findings were presented using a joint display., Results: Among 385 responses, 74.2% of health-care professionals were female and 48.6% were nurses. On average, respondents had been in their position for 60 months, and one-third (33.2%) were based at level-4 facilities. The majority (75.84%) thought that giving a single-dose of the HPV vaccine to adolescent girls and young women was either acceptable or very acceptable. Qualitative findings highlighted that lack of information was the underlying reason for health-care professionals who were resistant, and most clinicians thought that a singled-dose schedule was less burdensome to clinicians and patients. Hospital directors had a non-statistically significantly lower acceptability likelihood than nurses (incident rate ratio = 0.93, 95% confidence interval = 0.45 to 1.71) and health-care professionals at urban facilities had a non-statistically significantly lower acceptability likelihood than clinicians in rural facilities (incident rate ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval = 0.83 to 1.13)., Conclusion: Although not statistically significant, predictors of increased acceptability provide information to tailor strategies to increase HPV vaccination coverage and accelerate progress toward cervical cancer elimination., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer are at risk of poor psychosocial outcomes. AYAs grew up with the internet and digital technology, and mobile Health (mHealth) psychosocial interventions have the potential to overcome care access barriers., Objective: This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to establish the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a fully automated mobile app version of the Promoting Resilience in Stress Management intervention (mPRISM). Promoting Resilience in Stress Management is an evidence-based intervention developed in collaboration with AYAs, based on stress and coping theory, resilience theory, and evidence-based coping strategies. We hypothesized that mPRISM would be feasible, acceptable, and appropriate., Methods: This is a parallel, 2-arm, single-site pilot RCT with a waitlist control design. The study will recruit 80 AYAs with cancer from a clinic. Eligible AYAs are aged 12 to 25 years, within 12 months of a new cancer diagnosis, receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy, speak, read, or write in English, and are cognitively able to participate in study procedures. Recruitment by clinical research coordinators will occur remotely by phone, video, or text. Participants will be randomized to psychosocial usual care (UC) alone or UC plus mPRISM for an 8-week intervention period, and will remain unblinded to study condition. Enrolled participants will complete surveys at baseline before randomization, 8 weeks, and 3-month follow-up. Using a waitlist design, the UC arm will receive mPRISM upon completion of 3-month follow-up surveys. Those in the UC arm will complete 2 additional measurement points at immediate posttreatment and 3 months later. The primary outcomes of interest are feasibility, defined as ≥60% enrollment and ≥70% retention (ie, percentage of participants who completed the study), and "feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness" as defined by cut-off scores ≥4/5 on 3 brief validated implementation outcome measures (feasibility of implementation measure, acceptability of intervention measure [AIM], intervention appropriateness measure [IAM]). We will apply top-box scoring for the implementation measures. Exploratory outcomes of interest include patient-reported health-related quality of life, resilience, distress, anxiety, depression, pain, and sleep. We will conduct an intention-to-treat analysis to compare the outcomes of the mPRISM arm versus the control arm with covariate-adjusted regression models. We will summarize individual digital usage metrics using descriptive statistics., Results: Since September 2023, we have enrolled 20 participants and recruitment is ongoing., Conclusions: Although our previous work suggests AYAs with cancer are interested in mHealth psychosocial interventions, such interventions have not yet been sufficiently evaluated or implemented among AYA oncology patients. mPRISM may serve as a potential mHealth intervention to fill this gap. In this study, we will test the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of mPRISM. This work will inform future larger-scale RCTs powered for efficacy outcomes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05842902; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05842902., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/57950., (©Nancy Lau, Tonya M Palermo, Chuan Zhou, Isabel Badillo, Shannon Hong, Homer Aalfs, Joyce P Yi-Frazier, Elizabeth McCauley, Eric J Chow, Bryan J Weiner, Dror Ben-Zeev, Abby R Rosenberg. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 30.07.2024.)

Background: Implementation strategies are theorized to work well when carefully matched to implementation determinants and when factors-preconditions, moderators, etc.-that influence strategy effectiveness are prospectively identified and addressed. Existing methods for strategy selection are either imprecise or require significant technical expertise and resources, undermining their utility. This article outlines refinements to causal pathway diagrams (CPDs), a method for articulating the causal process through which implementation strategies work and offers illustrations of their use., Method: CPDs are a visualization tool to represent an implementation strategy, its mechanism(s) (i.e., the processes through which a strategy is thought to operate), determinants it is intended to address, factors that may impede or facilitate its effectiveness, and the series of outcomes that should be expected if the strategy is operating as intended. We offer principles for constructing CPDs and describe their key functions., Results: Applications of the CPD method by study teams from two National Institute of Health-funded Implementation Science Centers and a research grant are presented. These include the use of CPDs to (a) match implementation strategies to determinants, (b) understand the conditions under which an implementation strategy works, and (c) develop causal theories of implementation strategies., Conclusions: CPDs offer a novel method for implementers to select, understand, and improve the effectiveness of implementation strategies. They make explicit theoretical assumptions about strategy operation while supporting practical planning. Early applications have led to method refinements and guidance for the field., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)