Search

Implementation strategies are systematic approaches to improve the uptake and sustainability of evidence-based interventions. They frequently focus on changing provider behavior through the provision of interventions such as training, coaching, and audit-and-feedback. Implementation strategies often impact intermediate behavioral outcomes like provider guideline adherence, in turn improving patient outcomes. Fidelity of implementation strategy delivery is defined as the extent to which an implementation strategy is carried out as it was designed. Implementation strategy fidelity measurement is under-developed and under-reported, with the quality of reporting decreasing over time. Benefits of fidelity measurement include the exploration of the extent to which observed effects are moderated by fidelity, and critical information about Type-III research errors, or the likelihood that null findings result from implementation strategy fidelity failure. Reviews of implementation strategy efficacy often report wide variation across studies, commonly calling for increased implementation strategy fidelity measurement to help explain variations. Despite the methodological benefits of rigorous fidelity measurement, implementation researchers face multi-level challenges and complexities. Challenges include the measurement of a complex variable, multiple data collection modalities with varying precision and costs, and the need for fidelity measurement to change in-step with adaptations. In this position paper, we weigh these costs and benefits and ultimately contend that implementation strategy fidelity measurement and reporting should be improved in trials of implementation strategies. We offer pragmatic solutions for researchers to make immediate improvements like the use of mixed methods or innovative data collection and analysis techniques, the inclusion of implementation strategy fidelity assessment in reporting guidelines, and the staged development of fidelity tools across the evolution of an implementation strategy. We also call for additional research into the barriers and facilitators of implementation strategy fidelity measurement to further clarify the best path forward.

Background Implementation researchers are increasingly using economic evaluation to explore the benefits produced by implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) in healthcare settings. However, the findings of typical economic evaluations (e.g., based on clinical trials) are rarely sufficient to inform decisions about how health service organizations and policymakers should finance investments in EBPs. This paper describes how economic evaluations can be translated into policy and practice through complementary research on financing strategies that support EBP implementation and sustainment. Main body We provide an overview of EBP implementation financing, which outlines key financing and health service delivery system stakeholders and their points of decision-making. We then illustrate how economic evaluations have informed decisions about EBP implementation and sustainment with three case examples: (1) use of Pay-for-Success financing to implement multisystemic therapy in underserved areas of Colorado, USA, based in part on the strength of evidence from economic evaluations; (2) an alternative payment model to sustain evidence-based oncology care, developed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through simulations of economic impact; and (3) use of a recently developed fiscal mapping process to collaboratively match financing strategies and needs during a pragmatic clinical trial for a newly adapted family support intervention for opioid use disorder. Conclusions EBP financing strategies can help overcome cost-related barriers to implementing and sustaining EBPs by translating economic evaluation results into policy and practice. We present a research agenda to advance understanding of financing strategies in five key areas raised by our case examples: (1) maximize the relevance of economic evaluations for real-world EBP implementation; (2) study ongoing changes in financing systems as part of economic evaluations; (3) identify the conditions under which a given financing strategy is most beneficial; (4) explore the use and impacts of financing strategies across pre-implementation, active implementation, and sustainment phases; and (5) advance research efforts through strong partnerships with stakeholder groups while attending to issues of power imbalance and transparency. Attention to these research areas will develop a robust body of scholarship around EBP financing strategies and, ultimately, enable greater public health impacts of EBPs.

PURPOSE: In the US, many of the nearly 90,000 adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer each year do not receive services to address the full scope of needs they experience during and after cancer treatment. To facilitate a systematic and patient-centered approach to delivering services to address the unmet needs of AYAs with cancer, we developed the AYA Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB). METHODS: To develop NA-SB, we leveraged user-centered design, an iterative process for intervention development based on prospective user (i.e., provider and AYA) engagement. Specifically, we conducted usability testing and concept mapping to refine an existing tool- the Cancer Needs Questionnaire Young People- to promote its usability and usefulness in routine cancer practice. RESULTS: Our user-centered design process yielded a needs assessment which assesses AYAs’ physical, psychosocial and practical needs. Importantly, needs in the assessment are grouped by services expected to address them, creating an intuitive and actionable link between needs and services. CONCLUSION: NA-SB has the potential to improve care coordination at the individual level by allowing cancer care programs to tailor service delivery and resource provision to the individual needs of AYAs they serve.

In response to rising numbers of opioid overdose deaths, primary care providers have been called on to play a greater role in delivering buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder. However, policy makers and providers have raised concerns that expanding treatment access may reduce treatment quality and that primary care providers are not well equipped to deliver buprenorphine treatment. We investigated two research questions in response to these concerns: How did buprenorphine treatment use and quality change in North Carolina Medicaid from 2014 to 2017, and how did buprenorphine treatment quality differ between primary care providers and specialists in North Carolina Medicaid during this period? We measured buprenorphine treatment quality as patients' retention in treatment and providers' adherence to treatment guidelines. We found that the number of enrollees receiving medication treatment for opioid use disorder increased substantially, but the percentage of enrollees with the disorder receiving treatment remained low. The quality of buprenorphine treatment increased during the study period, and primary care providers provided care of comparable or higher quality compared with that of other providers. Treatment quality for buprenorphine treatment is improving, but there remains room for improvement in both use and quality. Our results support the role of primary care providers in expanding treatment for opioid use disorder.

Author(s): Yakovchenko, Vera; Miech, Edward J; Chinman, Matthew J; Chartier, Maggie; Gonzalez, Rachel; Kirchner, JoAnn E; Morgan, Timothy R; Park, Angela; Powell, Byron J; Proctor, Enola K; Ross, David; Waltz, Thomas J; Rogal, Shari S | Abstract: BackgroundThe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cares for more patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) than any other US health care system. We tracked the implementation strategies that VA sites used to implement highly effective new treatments for HCV with the aim of uncovering how combinations of implementation strategies influenced the uptake of the HCV treatment innovation. We applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to uncover causal dependencies and identify difference-making strategy configurations, and to distinguish higher from lower HCV treating sites.MethodsWe surveyed providers to assess VA sites' use of 73 implementation strategies to promote HCV treatment in the fiscal year 2015. CCMs were used to identify strategy configurations that uniquely distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites.ResultsFrom the 73 possible implementation strategies, CCMs identified 5 distinct strategy configurations, or "solution paths." These were comprised of 10 individual strategies that collectively explained 80% of the sites with higher HCV treatment starts with 100% consistency. Using any one of the following 5 solution paths was sufficient to produce higher treatment starts: (1) technical assistance; (2) engaging in a learning collaborative AND designating leaders; (3) site visits AND outreach to patients to promote uptake and adherence; (4) developing resource sharing agreements AND an implementation blueprint; OR (5) creating new clinical teams AND sharing quality improvement knowledge with other sites AND engaging patients. There was equifinality in that the presence of any one of the 5 solution paths was sufficient for higher treatment starts.ConclusionsFive strategy configurations distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites with 100% consistency. CCMs represent a methodological advancement that can help inform high-yield implementation strategy selection and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of future implementation efforts.

Phenomenon: Healthcare is an important sector in promoting physical activity (PA). However, few health professional training programs include PA, nor does standardized guidance exist on implementing it in the curriculum. This study aimed to consolidate health professional expert opinion on key PA categories and topics that should be included in the curriculum of health professional training programs. Approach: A three-round, modified e-Delphi process examined the opinions of 73 experts from seven health professions (clinical nutrition, exercise physiology, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, physician assistants). In Round 1, panelists reported importance, ranked, and scored five broad PA categories, and responded to open-ended prompts for additional categories. In Round 2, panelists received summary feedback, re-ranked and re-scored PA categories, and suggested key PA topics within the five categories. In the final round, panelists viewed, ranked, and scored the PA topics. Findings: Expert panelists felt that all PA categories were important, with Health Behavior Change ranking the highest (98.7%) followed by Cellular and Systemic Implications of Exercise, Clinical Exercise Physiology, and PA and Public Health. The Administrative Aspects of Integrating PA into Health Systems ranked least important (48.0%). A consensus on the key PA categories was considered reached after two rounds. Five to eight specific PA topics were generated within each PA category and ranked in order of importance. Insights: These findings highlight several key PA categories and topics that can serve as a foundation for a diverse number of health professional training programs.

Although communication is widely observed to be central to the implementation process, the field of implementation science has largely overlooked the details of how communication may best be utilized to facilitate implementation. This paper draws on relevant insights from Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations Theory, which laid the foundation for explicitly attending to the role of communication as a mechanism for implementation strategies to exert their effects. To offer empirically-derived and theory-informed recommendations regarding communication processes to support the effective introduction of new clinical practices. This investigation leverages data from 61 therapists poised to undergo implementation of measurement-based care (MBC) for depressed adults receiving psychotherapy in community mental health settings. Data were collected via focus groups across 12 sites. Themes emergent in the data analysis suggest five practices to facilitate effective communication in the introduction of new clinical practices like MBC: the communication of a clear rationale for the new practice; the provision of necessary procedural knowledge; communication about the change via multiple methods; sufficient lead time to prepare for the change; and the opportunity for bidirectional engagement. In addition to indicating several best practices to improve communication prior to implementation, our results suggest that the current conceptualization of implementation strategies may not yet be complete. Components and/or methods of effective communication about new practices should be included among the growing set of implementation strategies. Existing implementation strategies might also benefit from more temporal specificity, with more attention to the exploration and preparation phases. (Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02266134. Registered 12 October 2014.).There has been a great deal of attention recently to the study of implementation, or how something (e.g., a new clinical practice or initiative) is actually put into effect. Many studies have found a number of barriers to and facilitators of the implementation process. But despite this increased attention, the field of implementation science may not have paid enough attention to the role of communication. Although communication is generally acknowledged as important, precisely how it impacts implementation—and, importantly, the ways it might be improved—is typically unexplored. This study conducted focus groups with mental health therapists in 12 clinics which were about to implement a new clinical practice: measurement-based care for depressed adults receiving psychotherapy. What these therapists shared about their perspectives and experiences suggest that there are at least five ways to facilitate effective communication when introducing a new clinical practice: communicating a clear rationale for the new practice, providing necessary procedural knowledge, using multiple methods to communicate about the change, giving sufficient lead time to prepare for the change, and providing the opportunity for bidirectional engagement.

IntroductionAvoiding low value medical practices is an important focus in current healthcare utilisation. Despite advantages of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) over chest X-ray including improved workflow and timeliness of results, POCUS-guided central venous catheter (CVC) position confirmation has slow rate of adoption. This demonstrates a gap that is ripe for the development of an intervention.MethodsThe intervention is a deimplementation programme called DRAUP (deimplementation of routine chest radiographs after adoption of ultrasound-guided insertion and confirmation of central venous catheter protocol) that will be created to address one unnecessary imaging modality in the acute care environment. We propose a three-phase approach to changing low-value practices. In phase 1, we will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework to explore barriers and facilitators of POCUS for CVC confirmation in a single centre, large tertiary, academic hospital via focus groups. The qualitative methods will inform the development and adaptation of strategies that address identified determinants of change. In phase 2, the multifaceted strategies will be conceptualised using Morgan’s framework for understanding and reducing medical overuse. In phase 3, we will locally implement these strategies and assess them using Proctor’s outcomes (adoption, deadoption, fidelity and penetration) in an observational study to demonstrate proof of concept, gaining valuable insights on the programme. Secondary outcomes will include POCUS-guided CVC confirmation efficacy measured by time and effectiveness measured by sensitivity and specificity of POCUS confirmation after CVC insertion.With limited data available to inform interventions that use concurrent implementation and deimplementation strategies to substitute chest X-ray for POCUS using the DRAUP programme, we propose that this primary implementation and secondary effectiveness pilot study will provide novel data that will expand the knowledge of implementation approaches to replacing low value or unnecessary care in acute care environments.Ethics and disseminationApproval of the study by the Human Research Protection Office has been obtained. This work will be disseminated by publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts, presentation in abstract form at scientific meetings and data sharing with other investigators through academically established means.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT04324762, registered on 27 March 2020.

Background: Organizational culture, organizational climate, and implementation climate are key organizational constructs that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices. However, there has been little systematic investigation of the availability of psychometrically strong measures that can be used to assess these constructs in behavioral health. This systematic review identified and assessed the psychometric properties of measures of organizational culture, organizational climate, implementation climate, and related subconstructs as defined by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Ehrhart and colleagues. Methods: Data collection involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full-text review, construct assignment, and citation searches for all known empirical uses. Data relevant to nine psychometric criteria from the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) were extracted: internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, known-groups validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity, structural validity, responsiveness, and norms. Extracted data for each criterion were rated on a scale from −1 (“poor”) to 4 (“excellent”), and each measure was assigned a total score (highest possible score = 36) that formed the basis for head-to-head comparisons of measures for each focal construct. Results: We identified full measures or relevant subscales of broader measures for organizational culture ( n = 21), organizational climate ( n = 36), implementation climate ( n = 2), tension for change ( n = 2), compatibility ( n = 6), relative priority ( n = 2), organizational incentives and rewards ( n = 3), goals and feedback ( n = 3), and learning climate ( n = 2). Psychometric evidence was most frequently available for internal consistency and norms. Information about other psychometric properties was less available. Median ratings for psychometric properties across categories of measures ranged from “poor” to “good.” There was limited evidence of responsiveness or predictive validity. Conclusion: While several promising measures were identified, the overall state of measurement related to these constructs is poor. To enhance understanding of how these constructs influence implementation research and practice, measures that are sensitive to change and predictive of key implementation and clinical outcomes are required. There is a need for further testing of the most promising measures, and ample opportunity to develop additional psychometrically strong measures of these important constructs. Plain Language Summary Organizational culture, organizational climate, and implementation climate can play a critical role in facilitating or impeding the successful implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices. Advancing our understanding of how these contextual factors independently or collectively influence implementation and clinical outcomes requires measures that are reliable and valid. Previous systematic reviews identified measures of organizational factors that influence implementation, but none focused explicitly on behavioral health; focused solely on organizational culture, organizational climate, and implementation climate; or assessed the evidence base of all known uses of a measure within a given area, such as behavioral health–focused implementation efforts. The purpose of this study was to identify and assess the psychometric properties of measures of organizational culture, organizational climate, implementation climate, and related subconstructs that have been used in behavioral health-focused implementation research. We identified 21 measures of organizational culture, 36 measures of organizational climate, 2 measures of implementation climate, 2 measures of tension for change, 6 measures of compatibility, 2 measures of relative priority, 3 measures of organizational incentives and rewards, 3 measures of goals and feedback, and 2 measures of learning climate. Some promising measures were identified; however, the overall state of measurement across these constructs is poor. This review highlights specific areas for improvement and suggests the need to rigorously evaluate existing measures and develop new measures.

As the Knowledge Translation (KT) field advances, there is an increasing need to identify priorities to help shape future directions for research. An important source of KT priorities is ‘experts’ who are well-established researchers and practitioners. Another potential source for identifying priorities is trainees. Given that many KT trainees are developing their programs of research, understanding their main concerns and priorities for KT research and practice is critical to supporting the development and advancement of KT as a field. The purpose of this study was to identify priorities for research and practice in the KT field from the perspectives of KT researcher and practitioner trainees.

Implementation strategies are methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of a new program or practice. Recent studies have facilitated implementation strategy prioritization by mapping strategies based on their feasibility and importance, but these efforts have not been replicated across distinct service delivery contexts. The aim of the current project was to evaluate the feasibility and importance of an education-adapted taxonomy of implementation strategies and to directly compare feasibility and importance ratings to the original Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, the leading compilation of implementation strategies in healthcare. A sample of 200 school-based consultants who support social, emotional, and mental health services provided ratings of feasibility and importance for each of the 75 strategies included in the adapted School Implementation Strategies, Translating ERIC Resources (SISTER) compilation. Results identified strategies rated as: (a) both feasible and important, (b) important but not feasible, (c) feasible but not important, and (d) neither feasible nor important. When mapped onto scatterplots using feasibility and importance ratings, comparison of ERIC and SISTER ratings indicated that approximately one third of the strategies shifted from one quadrant of the feasibility and importance axis to another. Findings demonstrate the value of efforts to adapt and generalize existing implementation products to novel service settings, such as schools. Additionally, findings assist implementation researchers and practitioners in prioritizing the selection of actionable and practically relevant implementation strategies to advance the quality of school mental health services.

Schools, like other service sectors, are confronted with an implementation gap, with the slow adoption and uneven implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP) as part of routine service delivery, undermining efforts to promote better youth behavioral health outcomes. Implementation researchers have undertaken systematic efforts to publish taxonomies of implementation strategies (i.e., methods or techniques that are used to facilitate the uptake, use, and sustainment of EBP), such as the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Project. The 73-strategy ERIC compilation was developed in the context of healthcare and largely informed by research and practice experts who operate in that service sector. Thus, the comprehensibility, contextual appropriateness, and utility of the existing compilation to other service sectors, such as the educational setting, remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to initiate the School Implementation Strategies, Translating ERIC Resources (SISTER) Project to iteratively adapt the ERIC compilation to the educational sector. The results of a seven-step adaptation process resulted in 75 school-adapted strategies. Surface level changes were made to the majority of the original ERIC strategies (52 out of 73), while five of the strategies required deeper modifications for adaptation to the school context. Six strategies were deleted and seven new strategies were added based on existing school-based research. The implications of this study’s findings for prevention scientists engaged in implementation research (e.g., creating a common nomenclature for implementation strategies) and limitations are discussed.

By engaging with community partners, dissemination and implementation scholars can enhance research relevance and translation. We illustrate the skills needed for developing and maintaining community partnerships by presenting two case studies of partnerships between early-career investigators and child welfare systems to implement mental health interventions. The cases represent two models of partnership (investigator-led and agency-led), highlighting the value and difficulty of conducting community-engaged implementation research. The experiences described feature strategies for building and managing relationships, navigating rules and regulations, adaptation, and securing resources. We offer suggestions for improving training and research infrastructures to support community-engaged implementation scholars.

Background Theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) are foundational for generalizing implementation efforts and research findings. However, TMF and the criteria used to select them are not often described in published articles, perhaps due in part to the challenge of selecting from among the many TMF that exist in the field. The objective of this international study was to develop a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide their implementation projects. Methods Implementation scientists across the USA, the UK, and Canada identified and rated conceptually distinct categories of criteria in a concept mapping exercise. We then used the concept mapping results to develop a tool to help users select appropriate TMF for their projects. We assessed the tool’s usefulness through expert consensus and cognitive and semi-structured interviews with implementation scientists. Results Thirty-seven implementation scientists (19 researchers and 18 practitioners) identified four criteria domains: usability, testability, applicability, and familiarity. We then developed a prototype of the tool that included a list of 25 criteria organized by domain, definitions of the criteria, and a case example illustrating an application of the tool. Results of cognitive and semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for the tool to (1) be as succinct as possible; (2) have separate versions to meet the unique needs of researchers versus practitioners; (3) include easily understood terms; (4) include an introduction that clearly describes the tool’s purpose and benefits; (5) provide space for noting project information, comparing and scoring TMF, and accommodating contributions from multiple team members; and (6) include more case examples illustrating its application. Interview participants agreed that the tool (1) offered them a way to select from among candidate TMF, (2) helped them be explicit about the criteria that they used to select a TMF, and (3) enabled them to compare, select from among, and/or consider the usefulness of combining multiple TMF. These revisions resulted in the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST), a paper and web-enabled tool that includes 16 specific criteria that can be used to consider and justify the selection of TMF for a given project. Criteria are organized within four categories: applicability, usability, testability, and acceptability. Conclusions T-CaST is a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide implementation projects. Additionally, T-CaST has the potential to promote transparent reporting of criteria used to select TMF within and beyond the field of implementation science. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Context Implementation science measures are rarely used by stakeholders to inform and enhance clinical program change. Little is known about what makes implementation measures pragmatic (i.e., practical) for use in community settings; thus, the present study’s objective was to generate a clinical stakeholder-driven operationalization of a pragmatic measures construct. Evidence acquisition The pragmatic measures construct was defined using: 1) a systematic literature review to identify dimensions of the construct using PsycINFO and PubMed databases, and 2) interviews with an international stakeholder panel (N = 7) who were asked about their perspectives of pragmatic measures. Evidence synthesis Combined results from the systematic literature review and stakeholder interviews revealed a final list of 47 short statements (e.g., feasible, low cost, brief) describing pragmatic measures, which will allow for the development of a rigorous, stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the pragmatic measures construct. Conclusions Results revealed significant overlap between terms related to the pragmatic construct in the existing literature and stakeholder interviews. However, a number of terms were unique to each methodology. This underscores the importance of understanding stakeholder perspectives of criteria measuring the pragmatic construct. These results will be used to inform future phases of the project where stakeholders will determine the relative importance and clarity of each dimension of the pragmatic construct, as well as their priorities for the pragmatic dimensions. Taken together, these results will be incorporated into a pragmatic rating system for existing implementation science measures to support implementation science and practice.

Effective mentoring is a key mechanism propelling successful research and academic careers, particularly for early career scholars. Most mentoring programs focus on models pairing senior and early career researchers, with limited focus on peer mentoring. Peer mentoring may be especially advantageous within emerging areas such as implementation science (IS) where challenges to traditional mentoring may be more prevalent. This special communication highlights the value of peer mentoring by describing a case study of an early career IS peer mentoring group. We delineate our curriculum and structure; support and processes; and products and outcomes. We highlight important group member characteristics to consider during group formation and continuation. The group’s long-term (6 years) success was attributed to the balance of similarities and differences among group members. Members were in a similar career phase and used similar methodologies but studied different health topics at different institutions. Group members gave and received instrumental and psychosocial support and shared resources and knowledge. Peer mentoring can serve an important function to provide emotional, logistical, and professional development support for early career scholars. Our case study highlights strategies to foster peer mentoring groups that provide a generalizable blueprint and opportunity for improved outcomes for early career professionals.

Background Antibiotic-resistant infections have become a public health crisis that is driven by the inappropriate use of antibiotics. In the USA, antibiotic stewardship programs (ASP) have been established and are required by regulatory agencies to help combat the problem of antibiotic resistance. Post-operative antibiotic use in surgical cases deemed low-risk for infection is an area with significant overuse of antibiotics in children. Consensus among leading public health organizations has led to guidelines eliminating post-operative antibiotics in low-risk surgeries. However, the best strategies to de-implement these inappropriate antibiotics in this setting are unknown. Methods/design A 3-year stepped wedge cluster randomized trial will be conducted at nine US Children’s Hospitals to assess the impact of two de-implementation strategies, order set change and facilitation training, on inappropriate post-operative antibiotic prescribing in low risk (i.e., clean and clean-contaminated) surgical cases. The facilitation training will amplify order set changes and will involve a 2-day workshop with antibiotic stewardship teams. This training will be led by an implementation scientist expert (VRM) and a pediatric infectious diseases physician with antibiotic stewardship expertise (JGN). The primary clinical outcome will be the percentage of surgical cases receiving unnecessary post-operative antibiotics. Secondary clinical outcomes will include the rate of surgical site infections and the rate of Clostridioides difficile infections, a common negative consequence of antibiotic use. Monthly semi-structured interviews at each hospital will assess the implementation process of the two strategies. The primary implementation outcome is penetration, which will be defined as the number of order sets changed or developed by each hospital during the study. Additional implementation outcomes will include the ASP team members’ assessment of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of each strategy while they are being implemented. Discussion This study will provide important information on the impact of two potential strategies to de-implement unnecessary post-operative antibiotic use in children while assessing important clinical outcomes. As more unnecessary medical practices are identified, de-implementation strategies, including facilitation, need to be rigorously evaluated. Along with this study, other rigorously designed studies evaluating additional strategies are needed to further advance the burgeoning field of de-implementation. Trial registration NCT04366440. Registered April 28, 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04366440.

Implementation science is the study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence based interventions into practice and policy to improve health. Despite the need for high quality evidence from implementation research, randomised trials of implementation strategies often have serious limitations. These limitations include high risks of bias, limited use of theory, a lack of standard terminology to describe implementation strategies, narrowly focused implementation outcomes, and poor reporting. This paper aims to improve the evidence base in implementation science by providing guidance on the development, conduct, and reporting of randomised trials of implementation strategies. Established randomised trial methods from seminal texts and recent developments in implementation science were consolidated by an international group of researchers, health policy makers, and practitioners. This article provides guidance on the key components of randomised trials of implementation strategies, including articulation of trial aims, trial recruitment and retention strategies, randomised design selection, use of implementation science theory and frameworks, measures, sample size calculations, ethical review, and trial reporting. It also focuses on topics requiring special consideration or adaptation for implementation trials. We propose this guide as a resource for researchers, healthcare and public health policy makers or practitioners, research funders, and journal editors with the goal of advancing rigorous conduct and reporting of randomised trials of implementation strategies.

U.S. health care systems are tasked with alleviating the burden of mental health, but are frequently underprepared and lack workforce and resource capacity to deliver services to all in need. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) can increase access to evidence-based mental health care. However, DMHIs commonly do not fit into the day-to-day activities of the people who engage with them, resulting in a research-to-practice gap for DMHI implementation. For health care settings, differences between digital and traditional mental health services make alignment and integration challenging. Specialized attention is needed to improve the implementation of DMHIs in health care settings so that these services yield high uptake, engagement, and sustainment. The purpose of this article is to enhance efforts to integrate DMHIs in health care settings by proposing implementation strategies, selected and operationalized based on the discrete strategies established in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project, that align to DMHI-specific barriers in these settings. Guidance is offered in how these strategies can be applied to DMHI implementation across four phases commonly distinguished in implementation science using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework. Next steps to advance research in this area and improve the research-to-practice gap for implementing DMHIs are recommended. Applying implementation strategies to DMHI implementation will enable psychologists to systematically evaluate this process, which can yield an enhanced understanding of the factors that facilitate implementation success and improve the translation of DMHIs from controlled trials to real-world settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Background Sustainment has been defined as the sustained use or delivery of an intervention in practice following cessation of external implementation support. This review aimed to identify and synthesise factors (barriers and facilitators) that influence the sustainment of interventions (policies, practices, or programmes) in schools and childcare services that address the leading risk factors of chronic disease. Methods Seven electronic databases and relevant reference lists were searched for articles, of any design, published in English, from inception to March 2020. Articles were included if they qualitatively and/or quantitatively reported on school or childcare stakeholders’ (including teachers, principals, administrators, or managers) perceived barriers or facilitators to the sustainment of interventions addressing poor diet/nutrition, physical inactivity, obesity, tobacco smoking, or harmful alcohol use. Two independent reviewers screened texts, and extracted and coded data guided by the Integrated Sustainability Framework, an existing multi-level sustainability-specific framework that assesses factors of sustainment. Results Of the 13,158 articles identified, 31 articles met the inclusion criteria (8 quantitative, 12 qualitative, 10 mixed-methods, and 1 summary article). Overall, 29 articles were undertaken in schools (elementary n=17, middle n=3, secondary n=4, or a combination n=5) and two in childcare settings. The main health behaviours targeted included physical activity (n=9), diet (n=3), both diet and physical activity (n=15), and smoking (n=4), either independently (n=1) or combined with other health behaviours (n=3). Findings suggest that the majority of the 59 barriers and 74 facilitators identified to impact on intervention sustainment were similar across school and childcare settings. Factors predominantly relating to the ‘inner contextual factors’ of the organisation including: availability of facilities or equipment, continued executive or leadership support present, and team cohesion, support, or teamwork were perceived by stakeholders as influential to intervention sustainment. Conclusions Identifying strategies to improve the sustainment of health behaviour interventions in these settings requires a comprehensive understanding of factors that may impede or promote their ongoing delivery. This review identified multi-level factors that can be addressed by strategies to improve the sustainment of such interventions, and suggests how future research might address gaps in the evidence base. Trial registration This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO: CRD42020127869, Jan. 2020.

Background Cirrhosis is a rapidly increasing cause of global mortality. To improve cirrhosis care, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative to support VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) to deliver evidence-based cirrhosis care. This randomized HIT program evaluation aims to develop and assess a novel approach for choosing and applying implementation strategies to improve the quality of cirrhosis care. Methods Evaluation aims are to (1) empirically determine which combinations of implementation strategies are associated with successful implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for Veterans with cirrhosis, (2) manualize these “data-driven” implementation strategies, and (3) assess the effectiveness of data-driven implementation strategies in increasing cirrhosis EBP uptake. Aim 1 will include an online survey of all VAMCs’ use of 73 implementations strategies to improve cirrhosis care, as defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Traditional statistical as well as configurational comparative methods will both be employed to determine which combinations of implementation strategies are associated with site-level adherence to EBPs for cirrhosis. In aim 2, semi-structured interviews with high-performing VAMCs will be conducted to operationalize successful implementation strategies for cirrhosis care. These data will be used to inform the creation of a step-by-step guide to tailoring and applying the implementation strategies identified in aim 1. In aim 3, this manualized implementation intervention will be assessed using a hybrid type III stepped-wedge cluster randomized design. This evaluation will be conducted in 12 VAMCs, with four VAMCs crossing from control to intervention every 6 months, in order to assess the effectiveness of using data-driven implementation strategies to improve guideline-concordant cirrhosis care. Discussion Successful completion of this innovative evaluation will establish the feasibility of using early evaluation data to inform a manualized, user-friendly implementation intervention for VAMCs with opportunities to improve care. This evaluation will provide implementation support tools that can be applied to enhance the implementation of other evidence-based practices. Trial registration This project was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT04178096) on 4/29/20.

Background People who inject drugs (PWID) bear a disproportionate burden of HIV infection and experience poor outcomes. A randomized trial demonstrated the efficacy of an integrated System Navigation and Psychosocial Counseling (SNaP) intervention in improving HIV outcomes, including antiretroviral therapy (ART) and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) uptake, viral suppression, and mortality. There is limited evidence about how to effectively scale such intervention. This protocol presents a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial comparing two approaches for scaling-up SNaP. We will evaluate the effectiveness of SNaP implementation approaches as well as cost and the characteristics of HIV testing sites achieving successful or unsuccessful implementation of SNaP in Vietnam. Methods Design: In this cluster randomized controlled trial, two approaches to scaling-up SNaP for PWID in Vietnam will be compared. HIV testing sites (n = 42) were randomized 1:1 to the standard approach or the tailored approach. Intervention mapping was used to develop implementation strategies for both arms. The standard arm will receive a uniform package of these strategies, while implementation strategies for the tailored arm will be designed to address site-specific needs. Participants: HIV-positive PWID participants (n = 6200) will be recruited for medical record assessment at baseline; of those, 1500 will be enrolled for detailed assessments at baseline, 12, and 24 months. Site directors and staff at each of the 42 HIV testing sites will complete surveys at baseline, 12, and 24 months. Outcomes: Implementation outcomes (fidelity, penetration, acceptability) and effectiveness outcomes (ART, MOUD uptake, viral suppression) will be compared between the arms. To measure incremental costs, we will conduct an empirical costing study of each arm and the actual process of implementation from a societal perspective. Qualitative and quantitative site-level data will be used to explore key characteristics of HIV testing sites that successfully or unsuccessfully implement the intervention for each arm. Discussion Scaling up evidence-based interventions poses substantial challenges. The proposed trial contributes to the field of implementation science by applying a systematic approach to designing and tailoring implementation strategies, conducting a rigorous comparison of two promising implementation approaches, and assessing their incremental costs. Our study will provide critical guidance to Ministries of Health worldwide regarding the most effective, cost-efficient approach to SNaP implementation. Trial registration NCT03952520 on Clinialtrials.gov. Registered 16 May 2019.

Background: Increased availability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) is essential to alleviating the negative public health and societal effects of behavioral health problems. A major challenge to implementing and sustaining EBPs broadly is the limited and fragmented nature of available funding. Method: We conducted a scoping review that assessed the current state of evidence on EBP financing strategies for behavioral health based on recent literature (i.e., post-Affordable Care Act). We defined financing strategies as techniques that secure and direct financial resources to support EBP implementation. This article introduces a conceptualization of financing strategies and then presents a compilation of identified strategies, following established reporting guidelines for the implementation strategies. We also describe the reported level of use for each financing strategy in the research literature. Results: Of 23 financing strategies, 13 were reported as being used within behavioral health services, 4 had potential for use, 5 had conceptual use only, and 1 was potentially contraindicated. Examples of strategies reported being used include increased fee-for-service reimbursement, grants, cost sharing, and pay-for-success contracts. No strategies had been evaluated in ways that allowed for strong conclusions about their impact on EBP implementation outcomes. Conclusion: The existing literature on EBP financing strategies in behavioral health raises far more questions than answers. Therefore, we propose a research agenda that will help better understand these financing strategies. We also discuss the implications of our findings for behavioral health professionals, system leaders, and policymakers who want to develop robust, sustainable financing for EBP implementation in behavioral health systems. Plain language abstract: Organizations that treat behavioral health problems (mental health and substance use) often seek to adopt and use evidence-based practices (EBPs). A challenge to adopting EBPs broadly is the limited funding available, often from various sources that are poorly coordinated with one another. To help organizations plan effectively to adopt EBPs, we conducted a review of recent evidence (i.e., since the passage of the 2010 Affordable Care Act) on strategies for financing EBP adoption in behavioral health systems. We present definitions of 23 identified strategies and describe each strategy’s reported (in the research literature) level of use to fund EBP adoption in behavioral health services. Of the 23 financing strategies, 13 strategies had evidence of use, 4 had potential for use, 5 had conceptual use only, and 1 was potentially contraindicated. Examples of strategies with evidence of use include increased fee-for-service reimbursement, grants, cost sharing, and pay-for-success contracts. This comprehensive list of EBP financing strategies may help guide decision-making by behavioral health professionals, system leaders, and policymakers. The article also presents a research agenda for building on the current research literature by (1) advancing methods to evaluate financing strategies’ effects, (2) partnering with stakeholders and decision-makers to examine promising financing strategies, (3) focusing on strategies and service systems with the greatest needs, (4) improving methods to guide the selection of financing strategies, and (5) paying greater attention to sustainable long-term financing of EBPs.

BackgroundCross-system interventions can help integrate services across different service delivery systems but require organizations to establish strong collaborative relationships for implementation. Contingency theory suggests that the effectiveness of different collaborative strategies (i.e. specific ways organizations align operations and services) varies by context. This paper describes a study of different strategies for fostering collaboration between child welfare and substance abuse treatment agencies and the conditions under which they are effective for implementation. We also describe the development and piloting of the Collaborating Across Systems for Program Implementation (CASPI) tool—a decision-making guide intended to help researchers and organizational leaders identify and use appropriate collaborative strategies for their context.Methods/designThis multisite longitudinal, mixed methods study, leverages a naturally occurring implementation initiative -- in up to 17 Ohio counties -- to implement Ohio START (Sobriety Treatment and Reducing Trauma). START is a child welfare model that requires strong collaboration with local substance use treatment organizations to promote integrated services. During the first two years, we will identify collaborative strategies associated with improved START implementation (penetration and fidelity) and service delivery outcomes (timeliness), given system, and organizational features. We will conduct a convergent mixed methods study drawing on worker surveys, agency documents, administrative data, formal partner agreements, and group interviews. Data will be integrated and analyzed using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). To develop the CASPI, an expert panel comprised of implementation experts, and community stakeholders will convene to synthesize our findings and develop contents (including a decision tree). During the final year of the study, we will assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the CASPI in a randomized vignette experiment, and a pilot-test with 3 child welfare agencies that have not yet implemented START.DiscussionOur results will lay the groundwork for a larger controlled trial that will test the CASPI’s effectiveness for supporting effective and efficient implementation of cross-system interventions like START. The CASPI is expected to help leaders and researchers select and use collaboration strategies tailored to their context and be applicable in a wide range of settings including rural communities. Our work also advances system-level implementation strategies.Trial registrationNCT03931005, Registered April 29, 2019.

BACKGROUNDAvoiding low value medical practices is an important focus in current healthcare utilization. Despite advantages of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) over chest x-ray (CXR), including improved workflow and timeliness of results, POCUS-guided central venous catheter (CVC) position confirmation and exclusion of pneumothorax (PCEP) has had slow rate of adoption. This demonstrates a gap that is ripe for the development and application of de-implementation strategies that support substitution of POCUS for CXR after CVC insertion.METHODSDe-implementation of routine chest radiographs after adoption of ultrasound guided insertion and confirmation of central venous catheter protocol (DRAUP) will be created to de-implement an unnecessary imaging modality in the critical care environment. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs, we will explore barriers and facilitators of POCUS for CVC PCEP in a single center, large tertiary, academic hospital via focus groups. The focus groups will inform the development and testing of strategies that address identified determinants of implementation and de-implementation.Operational use of the de-implementation strategies will be conceptualized using Morgan’s framework for understanding and reducing medical overuse. We will locally implement these strategies and assess them using Proctor’s outcomes (adoption, de-adoption, fidelity and penetration) in an observational study to demonstrate proof of concept, gaining valuable insights on our selected implementation and de-implementation strategies. Secondary outcomes will include POCUS-guided CVC PCEP efficacy measured by time and effectiveness measured by sensitivity and specificity of POCUS detection.DISCUSSIONWith limited data available to inform interventions that use concurrent implementation and de-implementation strategies to substitute CXR for POCUS using DRAUP, we propose that this primary implementation and secondary effectiveness pilot study will provide novel data that would expand the knowledge of replacing low value or unnecessary care in critically ill patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT04324762, Registered on 27 March 2020

Objective To determine the effect of Medicaid expansion on the use of opioid agonist treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) and to examine heterogeneous effects by provider supply and Medicaid acceptance rates. Data sources Yearly state-level data on methadone dispensed from opioid treatment programs (OTPs), buprenorphine dispensed from OTPs and pharmacies, number of OTPs and buprenorphine-waivered providers, and percent of OTPs and physicians accepting Medicaid. Study design This study used difference-in-differences models to examine the effect of Medicaid expansion on the amount of methadone and buprenorphine dispensed in states between 2006 and 2017. Interaction terms were used to estimate heterogeneous effects. Sensitivity analyses included testing the association of outcomes with Medicaid enrollment and state insurance rates. Principal findings The estimated effects of Medicaid expansion on buprenorphine and methadone dispensed were positive but imprecise, meaning we could not rule out negative or null effects of expansion. The estimated associations between state insurance rates and dispensed methadone and buprenorphine were centered near zero, suggesting that improvements in health coverage may not have increased OUD treatment use. The effect of Medicaid expansion was larger in the states with the most waivered providers compared to states with the fewest waivered providers. In the states with the most waivered providers, the average estimated effect of expansion on buprenorphine dispensed was 12 kg/y, enough to treat about 7500 individuals. We did not find evidence that the effect of expansion was consistently modified by OTP concentration, OTP Medicaid acceptance, or physician Medicaid acceptance. Conclusions Gains in health coverage may not be sufficient to increase OUD treatment, even in the context of high treatment need. Provider capacity likely limited Medicaid expansion's effect on buprenorphine dispensed. Policies to increase buprenorphine providers, such as ending the waiver requirement, may be needed to ensure coverage gains translate to treatment access.

Background One of the key conceptual challenges in advancing our understanding of how to more effectively sustain innovations in health care is the lack of clarity and agreement on what sustainability actually means. Several reviews have helped synthesize and clarify how researchers conceptualize and operationalize sustainability. In this study, we sought to identify how individuals who implement and/or sustain evidence-informed innovations in health care define sustainability. Methods We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with implementation leaders and relevant staff involved in the implementation of evidence-based innovations relevant to cancer survivorship care (n = 27). An inductive approach, using constant comparative analysis, was used for analysis of interview transcripts and field notes. Results Participants described sustainability as an ongoing and dynamic process that incorporates three key concepts and four important conditions. The key concepts were: (1) continued capacity to deliver the innovation, (2) continued delivery of the innovation, and (3) continued receipt of benefits. The key conditions related to (2) and (3), and included: (2a) innovations must continue in the absence of the champion or person/team who introduced it and (3a) adaptation is critical to ensuring relevancy and fit, and thus to delivering the intended benefits. Conclusions Participants provided a nuanced view of sustainability, with both continued delivery and continued benefits only relevant under certain conditions. The findings reveal the interconnected elements of what sustainability means in practice, providing a unique and important perspective to the academic literature.

Background Implementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations. Methods A purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants’ experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations. Results Health economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research. Conclusions Health economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another’s work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another’s disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.

A systematic review was conducted to identify determinants (barriers and facilitators) of implementing evidence-based psychosocial interventions for children and youth who experience emotional or behavioral difficulties due to trauma exposure. Determinants were coded, abstracted, and synthesized using Aarons and colleagues’ (2011) Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework. Twenty-three articles were included, all of which examined implementation of Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools. This review identified multilevel and multiphase determinants that can be addressed by implementation strategies to improve implementation and clinical outcomes, and suggests how future studies might address gaps in the evidence base.

Background To prevent childhood obesity and promote healthy development, health authorities recommend that child care programs use the evidence-based practices that foster healthy eating and physical habits in children. Go NAPSACC is an intervention shown to improve use of these recommended practices, but it is known to encounter barriers that limit its impact and widespread use. Methods This study will use a type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster-randomized trial to compare effectiveness and implementation outcomes achieved from Go NAPSACC delivered with a basic or enhanced implementation approach. Participants will include approximately 25 coaches from Child Care Aware of Kentucky (serving four geographic regions), 97 child care centers with a director and teacher from each and two cross-sectional samples of 485 3–4-year-old children (one recruitment at baseline, another at follow-up). Coaches will be randomly assigned to deliver Go NAPSACC using either the basic or enhanced implementation approach. “Basic Go NAPSACC” represents the traditional way of delivering Go NAPSACC. “Enhanced Go NAPSACC” incorporates preparatory and support activities before and during their Go NAPSACC work, which are guided by the Quality Implementation Framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Data will be collected primarily at baseline and post-intervention, with select measures continuing through 6, 12, and 24 months post-intervention. Guided largely by RE-AIM, outcomes will assess change in centers’ use of evidence-based nutrition and physical activity practices (primary, measured via observation); centers’ adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the Go NAPSACC program (assessed via website use); center directors’, teachers’, and coaches’ perceptions of contextual factors (assessed via self-report surveys); children’s eating and physical activity behaviors at child care (measured via observation and accelerometers); and cost-effectiveness (assessed via logs and expense tracking). The hypotheses anticipate that “Enhanced Go NAPSACC” will have greater effects than “Basic Go NAPSACC.” Discussion This study incorporates many lessons gleaned from the growing implementation science field, but also offers opportunities to address the field’s research priorities, including applying a systematic method to tailor implementation strategies, examining the processes and mechanisms through which implementation strategies produce their effects, and conducting an economic evaluation of implementation strategies. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03938103, Registered April 8, 2019

Background Theories provide a synthesizing architecture for implementation science. The underuse, superficial use, and misuse of theories pose a substantial scientific challenge for implementation science and may relate to challenges in selecting from the many theories in the field. Implementation scientists may benefit from guidance for selecting a theory for a specific study or project. Understanding how implementation scientists select theories will help inform efforts to develop such guidance. Our objective was to identify which theories implementation scientists use, how they use theories, and the criteria used to select theories. Methods We identified initial lists of uses and criteria for selecting implementation theories based on seminal articles and an iterative consensus process. We incorporated these lists into a self-administered survey for completion by self-identified implementation scientists. We recruited potential respondents at the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health and via several international email lists. We used frequencies and percentages to report results. Results Two hundred twenty-three implementation scientists from 12 countries responded to the survey. They reported using more than 100 different theories spanning several disciplines. Respondents reported using theories primarily to identify implementation determinants, inform data collection, enhance conceptual clarity, and guide implementation planning. Of the 19 criteria presented in the survey, the criteria used by the most respondents to select theory included analytic level (58%), logical consistency/plausibility (56%), empirical support (53%), and description of a change process (54%). The criteria used by the fewest respondents included fecundity (10%), uniqueness (12%), and falsifiability (15%). Conclusions Implementation scientists use a large number of criteria to select theories, but there is little consensus on which are most important. Our results suggest that the selection of implementation theories is often haphazard or driven by convenience or prior exposure. Variation in approaches to selecting theory warn against prescriptive guidance for theory selection. Instead, implementation scientists may benefit from considering the criteria that we propose in this paper and using them to justify their theory selection. Future research should seek to refine the criteria for theory selection to promote more consistent and appropriate use of theory in implementation science.

Background Implementation outcome measures are essential for monitoring and evaluating the success of implementation efforts. Yet, currently available measures lack conceptual clarity and have largely unknown reliability and validity. This study developed and psychometrically assessed three new measures: the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). Methods Thirty-six implementation scientists and 27 mental health professionals assigned 31 items to the constructs and rated their confidence in their assignments. The Wilcoxon one-sample signed rank test was used to assess substantive and discriminant content validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) and Cronbach alphas were used to assess the validity of the conceptual model. Three hundred twenty-six mental health counselors read one of six randomly assigned vignettes depicting a therapist contemplating adopting an evidence-based practice (EBP). Participants used 15 items to rate the therapist’s perceptions of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of adopting the EBP. CFA and Cronbach alphas were used to refine the scales, assess structural validity, and assess reliability. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess known-groups validity. Finally, half of the counselors were randomly assigned to receive the same vignette and the other half the opposite vignette; and all were asked to re-rate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess test-retest reliability and linear regression to assess sensitivity to change. Results All but five items exhibited substantive and discriminant content validity. A trimmed CFA with five items per construct exhibited acceptable model fit (CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.79 to 0.94). The alphas for 5-item scales were between 0.87 and 0.89. Scale refinement based on measure-specific CFAs and Cronbach alphas using vignette data produced 4-item scales (α’s from 0.85 to 0.91). A three-factor CFA exhibited acceptable fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.75 to 0.89), indicating structural validity. ANOVA showed significant main effects, indicating known-groups validity. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.88. Regression analysis indicated each measure was sensitive to change in both directions. Conclusions The AIM, IAM, and FIM demonstrate promising psychometric properties. Predictive validity assessment is planned. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Evidence-based healthcare innovations require complementary evidence-based implementation strategies to support their translation into practice. Efforts to test, refine and replicate implementation strategies are frustrated by insufficient description. Our aim was to examine the extent to which implementation strategies could be specified using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) taxonomy, a behavioural science tool for describing the active ingredients of interventions. Methods The data source was a compilation of 73 implementation strategies, developed through evidence synthesis and expert consensus. The definition of each strategy (n=73) was deductively coded using the BCT Taxonomy, containing 93 discrete techniques. A typology was developed iteratively to categorise the extent of overlap between strategies and BCTs. The number of BCTs per strategy and extent of overlap was estimated. In the next stage, 3 experts will independently rate 1) their level of agreement with the categorisation and 2) level of agreement with the BCT(S) identified within each strategy. Results During preliminary analysis, 87 BCTs were coded across 73 strategies (average 1.2 per strategy). Five types of overlap were identified. For 8% of strategies (n=6), there was direct overlap between the strategy description and BCT (e.g. strategy: remind clinicians/BCT: prompts and cues). For 36% of strategies (n=26), there was at least 1 BCT clearly subsumed under the strategy description which could be used to guide initial operationalisation (e.g. strategy: provide clinical supervision/BCT: restructure social environment). For 26% of strategies (n=19), a BCT(s) was probably subsumed under the strategy given its definition and/or title but other BCTs were possible depending on how the strategy is operationalised (e.g. strategy: visit other implementation sites/BCT: social comparison). For 11% (n=8), there were no BCTs clearly indicated in the strategy definition or title (e.g. strategy: make training dynamic). Finally, 19% of strategies (n=14) did not focus on behaviour change to support implementation (e.g. strategy: access new funding). Conclusion Many implementation strategies require further specification in order to apply them in a setting, relying on assumptions and inference on the part of the intervention developer, be it researcher or practitioner. This creates an opportunity for inconsistent application and limits the potential for replication and synthesis of evidence of effectiveness. This study is the first step towards moving from general descriptions of implementation strategies to full descriptions of their active ingredients. This is essential to understand how strategies at an organisational and professional level can lead to observable changes in individual behaviour.

This paper presents a protocol for a funded study of technical assistance strategies used to support the use of evidence, and, in particular, how participatory processes contribute to the use of evidence to improve outcomes for populations. Findings from the study will increase understanding of the relationships between technical assistance, stakeholder participation and evidence use in child and family services. The authors argue that publishing such a protocol can increase transparency between researchers and practitioners and raise awareness of the need for research on how stakeholder participation can strengthen evidence use in child welfare service settings. The authors also reflect on the potential value and limitations of published protocols. This study will systematically gather input from stakeholders with expertise in technical assistance to develop a compilation of strategies that can be used to support the use of evidence. The study will identify strategies that include stakeholder involvement and assess which strategies under what conditions facilitated the use of research evidence. The study will address four research questions: What technical assistance strategies are used to support the use of research evidence? What are the consensus-driven terms and definitions of identified strategies? To what extent do technical assistance strategies involve stakeholders and for what purpose?

Background A fundamental challenge of implementation is identifying contextual determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and determining which implementation strategies will address them. Numerous conceptual frameworks (e.g., the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; CFIR) have been developed to guide the identification of contextual determinants, and compilations of implementation strategies (e.g., the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation; ERIC) have been developed which can support selection and reporting of implementation strategies. The aim of this study was to identify which ERIC implementation strategies would best address specific CFIR-based contextual barriers. Methods Implementation researchers and practitioners were recruited to participate in an online series of tasks involving matching specific ERIC implementation strategies to specific implementation barriers. Participants were presented with brief descriptions of barriers based on CFIR construct definitions. They were asked to rank up to seven implementation strategies that would best address each barrier. Barriers were presented in a random order, and participants had the option to respond to the barrier or skip to another barrier. Participants were also asked about considerations that most influenced their choices. Results Four hundred thirty-five invitations were emailed and 169 (39%) individuals participated. Respondents had considerable heterogeneity in opinions regarding which ERIC strategies best addressed each CFIR barrier. Across the 39 CFIR barriers, an average of 47 different ERIC strategies (SD = 4.8, range 35 to 55) was endorsed at least once for each, as being one of seven strategies that would best address the barrier. A tool was developed that allows users to specify high-priority CFIR-based barriers and receive a prioritized list of strategies based on endorsements provided by participants. Conclusions The wide heterogeneity of endorsements obtained in this study’s task suggests that there are relatively few consistent relationships between CFIR-based barriers and ERIC implementation strategies. Despite this heterogeneity, a tool aggregating endorsements across multiple barriers can support taking a structured approach to consider a broad range of strategies given those barriers. This study’s results point to the need for a more detailed evaluation of the underlying determinants of barriers and how these determinants are addressed by strategies as part of the implementation planning process. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0892-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background To increase the uptake of evidence-based treatments for hepatitis C (HCV), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established the Hepatitis Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative. Teams of providers were tasked with choosing implementation strategies to improve HCV care. The aim of the current evaluation was to assess how site-level implementation strategies were associated with HCV treatment initiation and how the use of implementation strategies and their association with HCV treatment changed over time. Methods A key HCV provider at each VA site (N = 130) was asked in two consecutive fiscal years (FYs) to complete an online survey examining the use of 73 implementation strategies organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. The number of Veterans initiating treatment for HCV, or “treatment starts,” at each site was captured using national data. Providers reported whether the use of each implementation strategy was due to the HIT Collaborative. Results Of 130 sites, 80 (62%) responded in Year 1 (FY15) and 105 (81%) responded in Year 2 (FY16). Respondents endorsed a median of 27 (IQR19–38) strategies in Year 2. The strategies significantly more likely to be chosen in Year 2 included tailoring strategies to deliver HCV care, promoting adaptability, sharing knowledge between sites, and using mass media. The total number of treatment starts was significantly positively correlated with total number of strategies endorsed in both years. In Years 1 and 2, respectively, 28 and 26 strategies were significantly associated with treatment starts; 12 strategies overlapped both years, 16 were unique to Year 1, and 14 were unique to Year 2. Strategies significantly associated with treatment starts shifted between Years 1 and 2. Pre-implementation strategies in the “training/educating,” “interactive assistance,” and “building stakeholder interrelationships” clusters were more likely to be significantly associated with treatment starts in Year 1, while strategies in the “evaluative and iterative” and “adapting and tailoring” clusters were more likely to be associated with treatment starts in Year 2. Approximately half of all strategies were attributed to the HIT Collaborative. Conclusions These results suggest that measuring implementation strategies over time is a useful way to catalog implementation of an evidence-based practice over time and across settings. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0881-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Given their clinical training and accessibility, community pharmacists are well positioned to support primary care, especially in providing medication management services. There is limited evidence, however, on implementation of community pharmacist-led services in coordination with other health care providers. The aim of this study was to examine the implementation process of community pharmacies in North Carolina participating in a Medicaid population health management intervention. We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 representatives from high- and low-performing community pharmacies from June to August 2017. We analyzed for themes organized around Rogers’s Stages in the Innovation Process in Organizations. Community pharmacies employed numerous implementation strategies such as developing relationships with providers and redefining job responsibilities to ensure pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are working at the top of their license. Findings also revealed differences in the implementation process among high- and low-performing pharmacies. Continued research is needed to determine which implementation strategies improve program performance.

Just as there is a robust science that supports development and rigorous testing of clinical innovations, the emerging field of implementation science is developing new theory-based knowledge regarding a growing portfolio of meticulously tested implementation strategies that seek to improve uptake of evidence-based practices by targeting barriers at multiple levels within health care settings. Studying and documenting implementation strategies associated with uptake during the development and trial of a clinical innovation could subsequently position the researcher for a more seamless transition and handoff of the innovation to clinical and operational leaders. The objective of this manuscript is to introduce the concept of implementation strategies: what they are; the rigor with which they are defined and applied to address barriers to clinical innovation adoption; how strategy selection may vary based on contextual, innovation, and recipient factors; how to document the application of strategies over the course of an implementation study; and how testing their effectiveness is the focus of implementation research trials.

Background National leaders recommend documenting social determinants of health and actions taken to address social determinants of health in electronic health records, and a growing body of evidence suggests the health benefits of doing so. However, little evidence exists to guide implementation of social determinants of health documentation/action. Methods This paper describes a 5-year, mixed-methods, stepped-wedge trial with realist evaluation, designed to test the impact of providing 30 community health centers with step-by-step guidance on implementing electronic health record-based social determinants of health documentation. This guidance will entail 6 months of tailored support from an interdisciplinary team, including training and technical assistance. We will report on tailored support provided at each of five implementation steps; impact of tailored implementation support; a method for tracking such tailoring; and context-specific pathways through which these tailored strategies effect change. We will track the competencies and resources needed to support the study clinics’ implementation efforts. Discussion Results will inform how to tailor implementation strategies to meet local needs in real-world practice settings. Secondary analyses will assess impacts of social determinants of health documentation and referral-making on diabetes outcomes. By learning whether and how scalable, tailored implementation strategies help community health centers adopt social determinants of health documentation and action, this study will yield timely guidance to primary care providers. We are not aware of previous studies exploring implementation strategies that support adoption of social determinants of action using electronic health and interventions, despite the pressing need for such guidance. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03607617, registration date: 7/31/2018—retrospectively registered Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0855-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Rapid qualitative assessment was used to describe early strategies to implement an evidence-based walking program for hospitalized older adults, assiSTed eaRly mobIlity for hospitalizeD older vEterans (STRIDE), mandated by a regional Department of Veterans Affairs health care system office (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN]). Methods Data were collected from 6 hospital sites via semistructured interviews with key informants, observations of telephone-based technical assistance, and review of VISN-requested program documents (eg, initial implementation plans). An overarching framework of actionable feedback for VISN leadership and specification of locally initiated implementation strategies, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation, was used. Actionable feedback was shared with VISN leadership 1 month after the initiative. Results ERIC implementation strategies identified were as follows: (1) promoting adaptability-4 sites had physical therapists/kinesiotherapists instead of assistants walk patients; (2) promoting network weaving-strengthening nursing and PT/KT partnership with regular communication opportunities or a point person was important for implementation; (3) distributing educational materials-2 sites distributed information about STRIDE via e-mail and in person; and (4) organizing clinician implementation team meetings-3 sites used interdisciplinary team meetings to communicate with the clinical staff about STRIDE. Conclusion This qualitative study sheds light on early experiences with implementing STRIDE; the results have been instructive for ongoing implementation and future dissemination of STRIDE, and the approach can be applied across contexts to inform implementation of other programs.

Background Many public health programs fail because of an inability to implement tested interventions in diverse, complex settings. The field of implementation science is engaged in developing strategies for successful implementation, but current training is primarily researcher-focused. To tackle the challenges of the twenty-first century, public health leaders are promoting a new model titled Public Health 3.0 where public health practitioners become “chief health strategists” and develop interdisciplinary skills for multisector engagement to achieve impact. This requires broad training for public health practitioners in implementation science that includes the allied fields of systems and design thinking, quality improvement, and innovative evaluation methods. At UNC Chapel Hill’s Gillings School of Global Public Health, we created an interdisciplinary set of courses in applied implementation science for Master of Public Health (MPH) students and public health practitioners. We describe our rationale, conceptual approach, pedagogy, courses, and initial results to assist other schools contemplating similar programs. Methods Our conceptual approach recognized the vital relationship between implementation research and practice. We conducted a literature review of thought leaders in public health to identify skill areas related to implementation science that are priorities for the future workforce. We also reviewed currently available training programs in implementation science to understand their scope and objectives and to assess whether any of these would be a fit for these priorities. We used a design focused implementation framework to create four linked courses drawing from multiple fields such as engineering, management, and the social sciences and emphasizing application through case studies. We validated the course content by mapping them to implementation science competencies in the literature. Results To date, there is no other program that provides comprehensive interdisciplinary skills in applied implementation science for MPH students. As of April 2018, we have offered a total of eleven sections of the four courses, with a total enrollment of 142, of whom 127 have been master’s-level students in the school of public health. Using Kirkpatrick’s Model, we found positive student reaction, learning, and behavior. Many students have completed applied implementation science focused practicums, master’s papers, and special studies. Conclusions A systematically designed interdisciplinary curriculum in applied implementation science for MPH students has been found by students to be a useful set of skills. Students have demonstrated the capability to master this material and incorporate it into their practicums and master’s papers. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0866-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The field of implementation science was developed to better understand the factors that facilitate or impede implementation and generate evidence for implementation strategies. In this article, we briefly review progress in implementation science, and suggest five priorities for enhancing the impact of implementation strategies. Specifically, we suggest the need to: (1) enhance methods for designing and tailoring implementation strategies; (2) specify and test mechanisms of change; (3) conduct more effectiveness research on discrete, multi-faceted, and tailored implementation strategies; (4) increase economic evaluations of implementation strategies; and (5) improve the tracking and reporting of implementation strategies. We believe that pursuing these priorities will advance implementation science by helping us to understand when, where, why, and how implementation strategies improve implementation effectiveness and subsequent health outcomes.

ObjectiveAs polypharmacy increases, so does the complexity of prescribing, dispensing and consuming medicines. Medication safety is typically framed as the avoidance of harm, achievable through adherence to policies, guidelines and operational standards. Automation, robotics and technologies are positioned as key players in the elimination of medication error in the face of escalating demand, despite limited research illuminating how these innovations are taken up, used and adapted in practice. We explore how ‘safety’ is constructed and accomplished in community pharmacies in the context of polypharmacy.Design and settingIn-depth ethnographic case study across four community pharmacies in England (December 2017–July 2019). Data collection entailed 140 hours participant observation and 19 in-depth interviews. Practice theory informed the analysis.Participants33 pharmacy staff (counter staff, technicians, dispensers, pharmacists).ResultsIn their working practices related to polypharmacy, staff used the term ‘safety’ in explanations of why and how they were doing things in particular ways. We present three interlinked analytic themes within an overarching narrative of care: caring for the technology; caring for each other; and caring for the patient. Our study revealed a paradox: polypharmacy was visible, pervasive and productive of numerous routines, but rarely discussed as a safety concern per se. Safety meant ensuring medicines were dispensed as prescribed, and correcting errors pertaining to individual drugs through the clinical check. Pharmacy staff did not actively challenge polypharmacy, even when the volume of medicines dispensed might indicate ‘high risk' polypharmacy, locating the responsibility for polypharmacy with prescribing clinicians.Conclusion‘Safety’ in the performance of practices relating to polypharmacy was not a fixed, defined notion, but an ongoing, collaborative accomplishment, emerging within an organisational narrative of ‘care’. Despite meticulous attention to ‘safety’, carefully guarded professional boundaries meant that addressing polypharmacy per se in the context of community pharmacy was beyond reach.

ObjectivesMoving innovations into healthcare organisations to increase positive health outcomes remains a significant challenge. Even when knowledge and tools are adopted, they often fail to become integrated into the long-term routines of organisations. The objective of this study was to identify factors and processes influencing the sustainability of innovations in cancer survivorship care.DesignQualitative study using semistructured, in-depth interviews, informed by grounded theory. Data were collected and analysed concurrently using constant comparative analysis.Setting25 cancer survivorship innovations based in six Canadian provinces.ParticipantsTwenty-seven implementation leaders and relevant staff from across Canada involved in the implementation of innovations in cancer survivorship.ResultsThe findings were categorised according to determinants, processes and implementation outcomes, and whether a factor was necessary to sustainability, or important but not necessary. Seven determinants, six processes and three implementation outcomes were perceived to influence sustainability. The necessary determinants were (1) management support; (2) organisational and system-level priorities; and (3) key people and expertise. Necessary processes were (4) innovation adaptation; (5) stakeholder engagement; and (6) ongoing education and training. The only necessary implementation outcome was (7) widespread staff and organisational buy-in for the innovation.ConclusionsFactors influencing the sustainability of cancer survivorship innovations exist across multiple levels of the health system and are often interdependent. Study findings may be used by implementation teams to plan for sustainability from the beginning of innovation adoption initiatives.

Background: Identifying feasible and effective implementation strategies remains a significant challenge. At present, there is a gap between the number of strategies prospectively included in implementation trials, typically four or fewer, and the number of strategies utilized retrospectively, often 20 or more. This gap points to the need for developing a better understanding of the range of implementation strategies that should be considered in implementation science and practice. Methods: This study elicited expert recommendations to identify which of 73 discrete implementation strategies were considered essential for implementing three mental health care high priority practices (HPPs) in the US Department of Veterans Affairs: depression outcome monitoring in primary care mental health ( n = 20), prolonged exposure therapy for treating posttraumatic stress disorder ( n = 22), and metabolic safety monitoring for patients taking antipsychotic medications ( n = 20). Participants had expertise in implementation science, the specific HPP, or both. A highly structured recommendation process was used to obtain recommendations for each HPP. Results: Majority consensus was identified for 26 or more strategies as absolutely essential; 53 or more strategies were identified as either likely essential or absolutely essential across the three HPPs. Conclusions: The large number of strategies identified as essential starkly contrasts with existing research that largely focuses on application of single strategies to support implementation. Systematic investigation and documentation of multi-strategy implementation initiatives is needed. Plain Language Summary Most implementation studies focus on the impact of a relatively small number of discrete implementation strategies on the uptake of a practice. However, studies that systematically survey providers find that dozens or more discrete implementation strategies can be identified in the context of the implementation initiative. This study engaged experts in implementation science and clinical practice in a structured recommendation process to identify which of the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategies were considered absolutely essential, likely essential, likely inessential, and absolutely inessential for each of the three distinct mental health care practices: depression outcome monitoring in primary care, prolonged exposure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder, and metabolic safety monitoring for patients taking antipsychotic medications. The results highlight that experts consider a large number of strategies as absolutely or likely essential for supporting the implementation of mental health care practices. For example, 26 strategies were identified as absolutely essential for all three mental health care practices. Another 27 strategies were identified as either absolutely or likely essential across all three practices. This study points to the need for future studies to document the decision-making process an initiative undergoes to identify which strategies to include and exclude in an implementation effort. In particular, a structured approach to this documentation may be necessary to identify strategies that may be endogenous to a care setting and that may not be otherwise be identified as being “deliberately” used to support a practice or intervention.

Background: In 2013, Nigeria accounted for 15% of the 1.3 million pregnant women living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa and 26% of new infections among children worldwide. Despite this, less than 20% of pregnant women in Nigeria received an HIV test during pregnancy, and only 23% of HIV-infected pregnant women received appropriate intervention following HIV diagnosis. This article reports findings from 2 structured group exercises conducted at the first Nigeria Implementation Science Alliance Conference to identify (1) barriers and research gaps related to prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) and (2) potential strategies and interventions that could address PMTCT challenges. Methods: Two 1-hour structured group exercises were conducted with 10 groups of 14–15 individuals (n = 145), who were asked to brainstorm barriers and strategies and to rank their top 3 in each category. Data analysis eliminated duplicate responses and categorized each of the priorities along the HIV care continuum: HIV diagnosis, linkage to care, or retention in care. Results: Participating stakeholders identified 20 unique barriers and research gaps related to PMTCT across the HIV continuum. Twenty-five unique interventions and implementation strategies were identified. Similar to the barriers and research gaps, these interventions and strategies were distributed across the HIV care continuum. Conclusions: The barriers and strategies identified in this study represent important pathways to progress addressing MTCT. The deliberate involvement of state and federal policy makers, program implementers, and researchers helps ensure that they are relevant and actionable.

Raghavan et al. (Implement Sci 3(26):1-9, 2008) proposed that effective implementation of evidence-based practices requires implementation strategies deployed at multiple levels of the "policy ecology," including the organizational, regulatory or purchaser agency, political, and social levels. However, much of implementation research and practice targets providers without accounting for contextual factors that may influence provider behavior. This paper examines Philadelphia's efforts to work toward an evidence-based and recovery-oriented behavioral health system, and uses the policy ecology framework to illustrate how multifaceted, multilevel implementation strategies can facilitate the widespread implementation of evidence-based practices. Ongoing challenges and implications for research and practice are discussed.

Our goal was to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of evidence-based practices from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in a large publicly funded mental health system. We completed 56 interviews with three stakeholder groups: treatment developers (n=7), agency administrators (n=33), and system leadership (n=16). The three stakeholder groups converged on the importance of inner (e.g., agency competing resources and demands, therapist educational background) and outer context (e.g., funding) factors as barriers to implementation. Potential threats to implementation and sustainability included the fiscal landscape of community mental health clinics and an evolving workforce. Intervention characteristics were rarely endorsed as barriers. Inner context, outer context, and intervention characteristics were all seen as important facilitators. All stakeholders endorsed the importance of coordinated collaboration across stakeholder groups within the system to successfully implement evidence-based practices.

Background Knowledge translation (KT) refers to the process of moving evidence into healthcare policy and practice. Understanding the experiences and perspectives of individuals who develop careers in KT is important for designing training programs and opportunities to enhance capacity in KT research and practice. To date, however, limited research has explored the challenges that trainees encounter as they develop their careers in KT. Aims The purpose of this study is to identify the challenges that KT trainees face in their KT research or practice. Methods An online survey was conducted with a sample of trainees associated with the Knowledge Translation Trainee Collaborative or the KT Canada Summer Institutes, with written responses thematically analyzed. Findings A total of 35 individual responses were analyzed, resulting in the identification of six interrelated themes, listed in descending order of prevalence: limited availability of KT-specific resources (54%), difficulty inherent in investigating KT (34%), KT not recognized as a distinct field (23%), colleagues’ limited knowledge and understanding of KT (20%), competing priorities and limited time (20%), and difficulties in relation to collaboration (14%). Discussion KT trainees experience specific challenges in their work: limited understanding of KT in other stakeholder groups; limited structures or infrastructure to support those who do KT; the inherently interdisciplinary and applied nature of KT; and the resultant complexities of scientific inquiry in this field, such as designing and testing multifaceted, multilevel implementation strategies and accounting for contextual factors. Linking Evidence to Action KT training and capacity-building efforts are needed to better position health systems to routinely adopt knowledge into healthcare policy and practice.