Search

Background: The implementation science literature acknowledges a need for engagement of key stakeholders when designing, delivering and evaluating implementation work. To date, the literature reports minimal or focused stakeholder engagement, where stakeholders are engaged in either barrier identification and/or barrier prioritisation. This paper begins to answer calls from the literature for the development of tools and guidance to support comprehensive stakeholder engagement in implementation research and practice. The paper describes the systematic development of the Implementation‐STakeholder Engagement Model (I‐STEM) in the context of an international, large‐scale empirical implementation study (ImpleMentAll) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored implementation toolkit. The I‐STEM is a sensitising tool that defines key considerations and activities for undertaking stakeholder engagement activities across an implementation process. Methods: In‐depth, semistructured interviews and observations were conducted with implementers who were tailoring implementation strategies to integrate and embed internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) services in 12 routine mental health care organisations in nine countries in Europe and Australia. The analytical process was informed by principles of first‐ and third‐generation Grounded Theory, including constant comparative method. Results: We conducted 55 interviews and observed 19 implementation‐related activities (e.g., team meetings and technical support calls). The final outcome of our analysis is expressed in an initial version of the I‐STEM, consisting of five interrelated concepts: engagement objectives, stakeholder mapping, engagement approaches, engagement qualities and engagement outcomes. Engagement objectives are goals that implementers plan to achieve by working with stakeholders in the implementation process. Stakeholder mapping involves identifying a range of organisations, groups or people who may be instrumental in achieving the engagement objectives. Engagement approaches define the type of work that is undertaken with stakeholders to achieve the engagement objectives. Engagement qualities define the logistics of the engagement approach. Lastly, every engagement activity may result in a range of engagement outcomes. Conclusion: The I‐STEM represents potential avenues for substantial stakeholder engagement activity across key phases of an implementation process. It provides a conceptual model for the planning, delivery, evaluation and reporting of stakeholder engagement activities. The I‐STEM is nonprescriptive and highlights the importance of a flexible, iterative approach to stakeholder engagement. It is developmental and will require application and validation across a range of implementation activities. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient contribution to ImpleMentAll trial was facilitated by GAMIAN‐Europe at all stages—from grant development to dissemination. GAMIAN‐Europe brings together a wide variety of patient representation organisations (local, regional and national) from almost all European countries. GAMIAN‐Europe was involved in pilot testing the ItFits‐toolkit and provided their views on the various aspects, including stakeholder engagement. Patients were also represented in the external advisory board providing support and advice on the design, conduct and interpretation of the wider project, including the development of the ItFits‐toolkit. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883. Retrospectively registered on 29 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Mechanisms of Change (MoC) explain how strategies used to enhance the uptake of evidence in social and human services enable change in the behaviors of individual practitioners, organizational leaders or entire organizations, and systems. One such strategy is the use of implementation support practitioner (ISPs). This study examines the mechanisms through which ISPs facilitate behavior supportive of the implementation of research-supported interventions. Methods : A systematic, integrative review was conducted. The conceptualization of MoCs built on a model by Dalkin and colleagues. Results: Based on a unique combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, ISPs install trust in and among their stakeholders and utilize this trust to promote meaningful and relevant learning; provide ongoing opportunities for learning, reflection, and support; help to span boundaries; and positively motivate stakeholders. Discussion: ISPs do not represent a short cut to better implementation. They represent an additional implementation challenge that requires dedicated attention and resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Skills in selecting and designing strategies for implementing research-supported interventions (RSIs) within specific local contexts are important for progressing a wider RSI adoption and application in human and social services. This also applies to a particular role in implementation, the implementation support practitioner (ISP). This study examines which strategies have been reported as being used by ISPs across multiple bodies of research on implementation support and how these strategies were applied in concrete practice settings. Methods: A systematic integrative review was conducted. Data analysis utilized the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation of implementation strategies. Results: Studies reported on 18 implementation strategies commonly used by different ISPs, who require mastery in selecting, operationalizing, and detailing these. Two further strategies not included in the ERIC compilation could be identified. Discussion: Given the use of primarily more feasible implementation support strategies among ISPs, their potential as agents of change may be underutilized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (iCBT) is found effective in treating common mental disorders. However, the use of these interventions in routine care is limited. The international ImpleMentAll study is funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 programme. It is concerned with studying and improving methods for implementing evidence-based iCBT services for common mental disorders in routine mental health care. A digitally accessible implementation toolkit (ItFits-toolkit) will be introduced to mental health care organizations with the aim to facilitate the ongoing implementation of iCBT services within local contexts. This study investigates the effectiveness of the ItFits-toolkit by comparing it to implementation-as-usual activities.Methods: A stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial (SWT) design will be applied. Over a trial period of 30 months, the ItFits-toolkit will be introduced sequentially in twelve routine mental health care organizations in primary and specialist care across nine countries in Europe and Australia. Repeated measures are applied to assess change over time in the outcome variables. The effectiveness of the ItFits-toolkit will be assessed in terms of the degree of normalization of the use of the iCBT services. Several exploratory outcomes including uptake of the iCBT services will be measured to feed the interpretation of the primary outcome. Data will be collected via a centralized data collection system and analysed using generalized linear mixed modelling. A qualitative process evaluation of routine implementation activities and the use of the ItFits-toolkit will be conducted within this study.Discussion: The ImpleMentAll study is a large-scale international research project designed to study the effectiveness of tailored implementation. Using a SWT design that allows to examine change over time, this study will investigate the effect of tailored implementation on the normalization of the use of iCBT services and their uptake. It will provide a better understanding of the process and methods of tailoring implementation strategies. If found effective, the ItFits-toolkit will be made accessible for mental health care service providers, to help them overcome their context-specific implementation challenges.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883 . Retrospectively registered on 29 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementation outcomes measures can be used to assess the implementation of complex health and social care interventions, but evidence for the use of these measures, and their psychometric properties, remains limited. The NoMAD ( Normalisation Me asure Development) survey, based on Normalisation Process Theory, was developed to assess, monitor, or measure factors likely to affect normalisation of a new practice from the perspective of participants who are engaged in an implementation process. Since publication in 2015, NoMAD has been translated into several languages and is increasingly being used in health and care research. This systematic review will identify, appraise, and synthesise the existing literature on the use of NoMAD as an implementation outcome measure, focusing on use and application across different studies and settings, and on its properties as a measurement tool., Methods: We will systematically search the bibliographic databases Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed for articles reporting empirical data in peer-reviewed journals. A citation search will also be undertaken in Google Scholar for primary NoMAD publications. Studies will be eligible for inclusion if they: (a) specify using NoMAD as a method and report results from using it, and/or (b) report a translation and/or validation study of NoMAD's measurement properties. Screening of abstracts and full text articles will be done independently by two researchers. Data extraction will be structured to allow collection and descriptive synthesis of data on study characteristics, use of NoMAD, psychometric results, and authors' reflections and recommendations., Conclusions: This review will provide the first synthesis of how NoMAD has been applied in health and care research, and evidence on its properties as an outcome measure since its publication. This will be used to update existing freely accessible guidance for researchers and other users, and disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, and engagement activities with researchers and practitioners., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors except Beckie Gibson, Jiri Gumancik and Oliver Wilson-Dickson have been involved in the development or use of NoMAD., (Copyright: © 2024 Finch TL et al.)