Search

Background: With a high mortality of 12.6% of all cancer cases, colorectal cancer (CRC) is a substantial burden of disease in Europe. In the past decade, more and more countries have introduced organized colorectal cancer screening programs, making systematic screening available to entire segments of a population, typically based on routine stool tests and/or colonoscopy. While the effectiveness of organized screening in reducing CRC incidence and mortality has been confirmed, studies continuously report persistent program implementation challenges. This systematic review will synthesize the literature on organized colorectal cancer screening programs. Its aim is to understand what is currently known about the barriers and facilitators, that influence the implementation of these programs, and about the implementation strategies used to navigate these determinants. Methods: A systematic review of primary studies of any research design will be conducted. CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus will be searched. Websites of (non-)government health care organizations and websites of organizations affiliated with authors of included studies will be screened for unpublished evaluation reports. Existing organized CRC screening programs will be contacted with a request to share program-specific grey literature. Two researchers will independently screen each publication in two rounds for eligibility. Included studies will focus on adult populations involved in the implementation of organized CRC screening programs and contain information about implementation determinants/ strategies. Publications will be assessed for their risk of bias. Data extraction will include study aim, design, location, setting, sample, methods, and measures; program characteristics; implementation stage, framework, determinant, strategies, and outcomes; and service and other outcome information. Findings will be synthesized narratively using the three stages of thematic synthesis. Discussion: With its sole focus on the implementation of organizedCRC screening programs, this review will help to fill a central knowledge gap in the literature on colorectal cancer screening. Its findings can inform the decision making in policy and practice needed to prioritize resources for establishing new and maintaining existing programs in the future. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42022306580)

The most prevalent infections encountered in neonatal care are healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The majority of HAIs are considered preventable by evidence-based infection prevention and control (IPC) practices, but substantial knowledge gaps exist in IPC implementation in neonatal care. Furthermore, knowledge of factors that facilitate or challenge IPC programme uptake and sustainment in neonatal units is limited. The integration of implementation science approaches within IPC programmes in neonatal care aims to address these problems.The aim of this narrative review was to identify determinants that have been reported to influence the implementation of IPC programmes and best practices in inpatient neonatal care settings.A literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and CINAHL in May 2022. Primary study reports published since 2000 in English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian were eligible for inclusion. Included studies focused on IPC practices in inpatient neonatal care settings and reported determinants that influenced implementation processes.The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to identify and cluster reported determinants to the implementation of IPC practices and programmes in neonatal care. Most studies reported challenges and facilitators at the organisational level as particularly relevant to implementation processes. Commonly reported determinants included staffing levels, work- and caseloads, as well as aspects of organisational culture, such as communication and leadership.The presented knowledge about factors influencing neonatal IPC can support the design, implementation, and evaluation of IPC practices.

Background Relative to their counterparts in the general population, young people who leave, or transition out of, out-of-home (OOHC) arrangements commonly experience poorer outcomes across a range of indicators, including higher rates of homelessness, unemployment, reliance on public assistance, physical and mental health problems and contact with the criminal justice system. The age at which young people transition from OOHC varies between and within some countries, but for most, formal support ceases between the ages of 18 and 21. Programs designed to support transitions are generally available to young people toward the end of their OOHC placement, although some can extend beyond. They often encourage the development of skills required for continued engagement in education, obtaining employment, maintaining housing and general life skills. Little is known about the effectiveness of these programs or of extended care policies that raise the age at which support remains available to young people after leaving OOHC. This systematic review will seek to identify programs and/or interventions that improve outcomes for youth transitioning from the OOHC system into adult living arrangements. Methods This review will identify programs, interventions and policies that seek to improve health and wellbeing of this population that have been tested using robust controlled methods. Primary outcomes of interest are homelessness, health, education, employment, exposure to violence and risky behaviour. Secondary outcomes are relationships and life skills. We will search, from January 1990 onwards, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, SocINDEX, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment. Grey literature will be identified through searching websites and databases, e.g. clearing houses, government agencies and organisations known to be undertaking or consolidating research on this topic area. Two reviewers will independently screen all title and abstracts and full text articles with conflicts to be resolved by a third reviewer. Data extraction will be undertaken by pairs of review authors, with one reviewer checking the results of the other. If more than one study with suitable data can be identified, we plan to undertake both fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses and intend to present the random-effects result if there is no indication of funnel plot asymmetry. Risk of bias will be assessed using tools appropriate to the study methodology. Quality of evidence across studies will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Discussion Previous reviews were unable to identify any programs or interventions, backed by methodologically rigorous research, that improve outcomes for this population. This review seeks to update this previous work, taking into account changes in the provision of extended care, which is now available in some jurisdictions. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020146999

Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies mechanisms that have been demonstrated to play an important role in implementation processes. It is now widely used to inform feasibility, process evaluation, and implementation studies in healthcare and other areas of work. This qualitative synthesis of NPT studies aims to better understand how NPT explains observed and reported implementation processes, and to explore the ways in which its constructs explain the implementability, enacting and sustainment of complex healthcare interventions.We will systematically search Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science databases and use the Google Scholar search engine for citations of key papers in which NPT was developed. This will identify English language peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals reporting (a) primary qualitative or mixed methods studies; or, (b) qualitative or mixed methods evidence syntheses in which NPT was the primary analytic framework. Studies may be conducted in any healthcare setting, published between June 2006 and 31 December 2021. We will perform a qualitative synthesis of included studies using two parallel methods: (i) directed content analysis based on an already developed coding manual; and (ii) unsupervised textual analysis using Leximancer® topic modelling software.We will disseminate results of the review using peer reviewed publications, conference and seminar presentations, and social media (Facebook and Twitter) channels. The primary source of funding is the National Institute for Health Research ARC North Thames. No human subjects or personal data are involved and no ethical issues are anticipated.

On a global scale, implementation science has developed considerably as a discipline in recent years. In German-speaking countries, the field has been gaining significance as well, but respective efforts in building capacity and advancing the research infrastructure are still rare. The present study investigates barriers and facilitators for conducting implementation science in German-speaking countries with the goal of formulating recommendations for creating a more supportive research infrastructure. We conducted an interview study with nine well-established implementation researchers affiliated with universities in Austria, Germany, or Switzerland. The interviews were held via Zoom or phone in November and December 2020, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Barriers that relate to characteristics of the discipline were difficulties in building a common understanding of the field and the complexity of implementation research projects. Although supportive scientific networks were important facilitators, interviewees mentioned challenges in connecting with likeminded researchers. A further barrier was the lack of opportunities for education and training in implementation science, especially in the German language. Also, participants reported a missing readiness in academia for establishing implementation science that should be addressed by advocacy of the discipline toward academic decision makers. Moreover, since most national funding agencies prioritize basic research over applied research, some interviewees named flexibility in handling research funds as a facilitator for implementation research. The results inform an agenda for promoting implementation science in German-speaking countries and can be beneficial to other countries that are currently advancing their implementation research capacity and infrastructure.; The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00046-3.

This study aims to understand the role implementation support practitioners can have in supporting the use of research-supported practices, policies, and programs in human service sectors. Through ...

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.

Using a qualitative case study design, this study explored why the implementation of Multisystemic Therapy-Emerging Adults (MST-EA), a program for young people with high and complex support needs, ...

Background Workforce development for implementation practice has been identified as a grand challenge in health services. This is due to the embryonic nature of the existing research in this area, few available training programs and a general shortage of frontline service staff trained and prepared for practicing implementation in the field. The interest in the role of “implementation support” as a way to effectively build the implementation capacities of the human service sector has therefore increased. However, while frequently used, little is known about the skills and competencies required to effectively provide such support. Main body To progress the debate and the research agenda on implementation support competencies, we propose the role of the “implementation support practitioner” as a concept unifying the multiple streams of research focused on e.g. consultation, facilitation, or knowledge brokering. Implementation support practitioners are professionals supporting others in implementing evidence-informed practices, policies and programs, and in sustaining and scaling evidence for population impact. They are not involved in direct service delivery or management and work closely with the leadership and staff needed to effectively deliver direct clinical, therapeutic or educational services to individuals, families and communities. They may be specialists or generalists and be located within and/or outside the delivery system they serve. To effectively support the implementation practice of others, implementation support practitioners require an ability to activate implementation-relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes, and to operationalize and apply these in the context of their support activities. In doing so, they aim to trigger both relational and behavioral outcomes. This thinking is reflected in an overarching logic outlined in this article. Conclusion The development of implementation support practitioners as a profession necessitates improved conceptual thinking about their role and work and how they enable the uptake and integration of evidence in real world settings. This article introduces a preliminary logic conceptualizing the role of implementation support practitioners informing research in progress aimed at increasing our knowledge about implementation support and the competencies needed to provide this support.

Purpose: In 2017–2018, the state of Victoria, Australia, initiated the implementation of five family and parenting programs within family services. Three—SafeCare®, Functional Family Therapy-Child Welfare®, and Multisystemic Therapy-Psychiatric®—originated in the United States and were supported through overseas intermediary or purveyor organizations (IPOs). This study examines the challenges and barriers faced by service agencies and their staff during the initial implementation of these three research-supported interventions (RSIs). Method: Qualitative data collected among a purposive sample of implementers selected across provider agencies and IPOs were analyzed. Results: IPOs’ implementation specialists used a similarly composed sample of N = 31.2 implementation strategies. The early implementation stage was fragile and characterized by three distinct phases. Primary implementation challenges existed in the inner setting, intervention, and individual characteristics. Discussion: To balance the fragility of early implementation and sustain RSI implementation, it is important to immediately supplement overseas IPO support with strong local implementation capacities.

Background Repeated, data-driven optimisation processes have been applied in many fields to rapidly transform the performance of products, processes and interventions. While such processes may similarly be employed to enhance the impact of public health initiatives, optimisation has not been defined in the context of public health and there has been little exploration of its key concepts. Methods We used a modified, three-round Delphi study with an international group of researchers, public health policy-makers and practitioners to (1) generate a consensus-based definition of optimisation in the context of public health and (2i) describe key considerations for optimisation in that context. A pre-workshop literature review and elicitation of participant views regarding optimisation in public health (round 1) were followed by a daylong workshop and facilitated face-to-face group discussions to refine the definition and generate key considerations (round 2); finally, post-workshop discussions were undertaken to refine and finalise the findings (round 3). A thematic analysis was performed at each round. Study findings reflect an iterative consultation process with study participants. Results Thirty of 33 invited individuals (91%) participated in the study. Participants reached consensus on the following definition of optimisation in public health: “A deliberate, iterative and data-driven process to improve a health intervention and/or its implementation to meet stakeholder-defined public health impacts within resource constraints”. A range of optimisation considerations were explored. Optimisation was considered most suitable when existing public health initiatives are not sufficiently effective, meaningful improvements from an optimisation process are anticipated, quality data to assess impacts are routinely available, and there are stable and ongoing resources to support it. Participants believed optimisation could be applied to improve the impacts of an intervention, an implementation strategy or both, on outcomes valued by stakeholders or end users. While optimisation processes were thought to be facilitated by an understanding of the mechanisms of an intervention or implementation strategy, no agreement was reached regarding the best approach to inform decisions about modifications to improve impact. Conclusions The study findings provide a strong basis for future research to explore the potential impact of optimisation in the field of public health.

When empirically supported interventions are implemented in real-world practice settings, the process of how these interventions are implemented is highly relevant for their potential success. Implementation Mapping is a method that provides step-by-step guidance for systematically designing implementation processes that fit the respective intervention and context. It includes needs assessments among relevant stakeholders, the identification of implementation outcomes and determinants, the selection and design of appropriate implementation strategies, the production of implementation protocols and an implementation outcome evaluation. Implementation Mapping is generally conceptualized as a tool to prospectively guide implementation. However, many implementation efforts build on previous or ongoing implementation efforts, i.e., “existing implementation.” Learnings from existing implementation may offer insights critical to the success of further implementation activities. In this article, we present a modified Implementation Mapping methodology to be applied when evaluating existing implementation. We illustrate the methodology using the example of evaluating ongoing organized colorectal cancer screening programs in Switzerland. Through this example, we describe how we identify relevant stakeholders, implementation determinants and outcomes as well as currently employed implementation strategies. Moreover, we describe how we compare the types of strategies that are part of existing implementation efforts with those that implementation science would suggest as being suited to address identified implementation determinants. The results can be used for assessing the current state of implementation outcomes, refining ongoing implementation strategies, and informing future implementation efforts.

Background. Qualitative studies, especially those conducted by teams of researchers, may benefit from clearly structured, parsimonious, coding manuals. The process of creating rigorous and robust coding manuals for individual studies is rarely described, and generalizable coding manuals are rare. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) provides conceptual tools to facilitate understanding of the dynamics of adoption, implementation, and sustainment of socio-technical and organizational innovations. As a widely used theory, a generalizable coding manual would be of utility to implementation researchersObjectives. To make the application of NPT simple for the user, to describe the development of a coding manual for qualitative content analytic studies using NPT, and present this for wider use.Method. Concept Selection and Structuring. Qualitative Content Analysis of selected published papers and interview transcripts. Results. All identifiable theoretical concepts (n=149) embedded in papers and chapters that developed NPT between 2006 and 2020 were identified and extracted from their texts. Overlapping, ambiguous, and duplicate versions of concepts were eliminated, as were concepts derived from other theories. This left 38 core concept definitions. These were piloted in coding of qualitative transcripts collected in two implementation studies, and by collaboratively coding papers collected for a systematic review of implementation studies. At the end of this process, a further process of elimination of overlapping or ambiguous concepts was undertaken leaving 12 primary NPT concepts. Conclusion. The process of coding manual resulted in the presentation of NPT concepts according to the Context-Mechanism-Outcomes configuration of realist evaluation research. A coding manual for NPT that is in accordance with realistic evaluation research was successfully produced and is now freely available to researchers who wish to use NPT in primary and secondary research that employs qualitative methods.

Optimising community health worker (CHW) programmes requires evidence-based policies on their education,\ud deployment, and management. This guideline aims to inform efforts by planners, policy makers, and managers to\ud improve CHW programmes as part of an integrated approach to strengthen primary health care and health systems.\ud The development of this guideline followed the standard WHO approach to developing global guidelines. We\ud conducted one overview of reviews, 15 systematic reviews (each one on a specific policy question), and a survey of\ud stakeholders’ views on the acceptability and feasibility of the interventions under consideration. We assessed the\ud quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.\ud The overview of reviews identified 122 eligible articles and the systematic reviews identified 137 eligible primary\ud studies. The stakeholder perception survey obtained inputs from 96 respondents. Recommendations were developed\ud in the areas of CHW selection, preservice education, certification, supervision, remuneration and career advancement,\ud planning, community embeddedness, and health system support. These are the first evidence-based global guidelines\ud for health policy and system support to optimise community health worker programmes. Key considerations for\ud implementation include the need to define the role of CHWs in relation to other health workers and plan for the\ud health workforce as a whole rather than by specific occupational groups; appropriately integrate CHW programmes\ud into the general health system and existing community systems; and ensure internal coherence and consistency\ud across different policies and programmes affecting CHWs.

Background Child maltreatment has serious short and long‐term negative impacts for those experiencing it. Child maltreatment occurring in institutional settings has recently received substantial attention. However, evidence about the effectiveness of interventions that prevent, disclose, respond to, or treat maltreatment that has occurred in these environments is fragmented and can be difficult to access. This evidence and gap map (EGM) collates this research evidence. It was developed as a resource for stakeholders operating in the child health, welfare and protection sectors, including practitioners, organisational leaders, policy developers and researchers, wanting to access high quality evidence on interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment. Objectives The objectives of this EGM were twofold: (a) To provide a structured and accessible collection of existing evidence from finalised and ongoing overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews and effectiveness studies of interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment—for those who work to fund, develop, implement and evaluate interventions aimed at ensuring children's safety in institutional settings; (b) to identify gaps in the available evidence on interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment—thereby helping to inform the research agendas of funders and other organisations. Search Methods A comprehensive search strategy identified relevant studies from published and grey literature, comprising: (1) 10 electronic academic databases; (2) five trial and systematic review registries; (3) nine organisational websites; (4) websites and reference lists of inquiry reports associated with seven international inquiries into child abuse and (4) the lists of included studies within systematic reviews identified by the search strategy. Members of this EGM's Subject Matter Experts group were also invited to forward relevant unpublished studies or grey literature. Selection Criteria The selection criteria were developed to identify finalised and ongoing overviews of reviews, systematic reviews and primary studies that reported on the effectiveness of interventions addressing child maltreatment (including sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect and emotional abuse) within institutional settings. Eligible effectiveness study designs included: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised trials, controlled before‐and‐after studies and quasi‐experimental studies. Reviews were eligible if they reported a systematic literature search strategy. Data Collection and Analysis All screening, data extraction, coding and critical appraisals were undertaken by two or more reviewers working independently, with discrepancies resolved via consensus or by a third reviewer. The titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy were screened, and each full text of potentially relevant studies was further assessed for inclusion. Key data were extracted from all included studies and reviews. This included information about: publication details (e.g., year, author, country), inclusion/exclusion criteria (for reviews), study design, institutional setting, target population, type of maltreatment, intervention type and outcomes. Critical appraisal of included systematic reviews was achieved using the AMSTAR 2 tool, and completed RCTs were assessed using the updated Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Main Results Number of studies The electronic database search yielded 6318 citations, and a further 2375 records were identified from additional sources. Following deduplication and title/abstract screening, 256 studies remained for full text review. A total of 73 eligible studies (reported across 84 publications) met the inclusion criteria, including: 11 systematic reviews (plus, one update); 62 primary studies (including, three protocols for primary studies). Study characteristics The studies were conducted across 18 countries, however more than half (52%) were undertaken in the United States. Overall, most studies evaluated curriculum‐based interventions delivered in educational settings, primarily aimed at the prevention of sexual abuse. Institutional setting: Most studies evaluated interventions in school or early learning environments (n = 8 systematic reviews; n = 58 primary studies). Far fewer studies examined other organisational settings. Out of home care (including foster care, residential care and orphanages), and social service organisations servicing children were minimally represented. No studies were identified where the primary setting was sports clubs, churches/religious organisations, summer/vacation camps, detention centres/juvenile justice settings, or primary/secondary health care facilities. Target population: Most interventions targeted children rather than adults (n = 7 systematic reviews; n = 47 primary studies) from the general population. Fewer studies included populations known to be at an increased risk, or those already exposed to maltreatment. Just over a third of the primary studies conducted an analysis to ascertain differences in the effect of an intervention between the genders. Intervention type: Prevention interventions were the most studied (n = 5 systematic reviews; n = 57 primary studies), with additional studies including prevention approaches alongside other intervention types. Fewer studies evaluated interventions targeting disclosure, institutional responses, or treatment interventions. Type of maltreatment: The vast majority of the studies assessed interventions solely addressing the sexual abuse of children (n = 8 systematic reviews; n = 45 primary studies). The remaining studies addressed other forms of maltreatment, including physical and emotional abuse, or neglect, either in combination or as a sole focus. Outcomes: Primary reported outcomes reflected the bias toward child targeted interventions. Outcome measures captured child wellbeing and knowledge outcomes, including measures of mental health, children's knowledge retention and/or self‐protective skills. Measures of maltreatment disclosure or maltreatment occurrence/reoccurrence were less common, and all other outcome categories included in the EGM were minimally or not reported. A third of studies reported on some measure of implementation. Study quality The overall quality of the studies was low to moderate. Most systematic reviews were low‐quality (n = 10), with only one high quality review (and update) identified. Most completed RCTs had some concerns relating to the risk of bias (n = 30), and the remainder were considered to be at a high risk of bias (n = 19). Authors' Conclusions This EGM has highlighted a substantial need for more high quality studies that evaluate interventions across a broader range of institutional contexts and maltreatment types. The current evidence base does not represent countries with large populations and the greatest incidence of child maltreatment. Few studies focussed on perpetrators or the organisational environment. Further evidence gaps were identified for interventions relating to disclosure, organisational responses and treatment, and few studies assessed interventions targeting perpetrators' maltreatment behaviours, recidivism or desistence. Future studies should also include measure of programme implementation.

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.

Background:Relative to their counterparts in the general population, young people who leave, or transition out of, out-of-home (OOHC) arrangements, commonly experience poorer outcomes across a range of indicators, including: higher rates of homelessness, unemployment, reliance on public assistance, physical and mental health problems, and contact with the criminal justice system. The age at which young people transition from OOHC varies between and within some countries, but for most, formal support ceases between the ages of 18 and 21.Programs designed to support transitions are generally available to young people toward the end of their OOHC placement, although some can extend beyond. They often encourage the development of skills required for continued engagement in education, obtaining employment, maintaining housing and general life skills. Little is known about the effectiveness of these programs, or of extended care policies that raise the age at which support remains available to young people after leaving OOHC. This systematic review will seek to identify programs and/or interventions that improve outcomes for youth transitioning from the OOHC system into adult living arrangements.Methods:Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines, this review will identify programs, interventions and policies that seek to improve health and psychosocial outcomes amongst this population that have been tested using robust controlled methods. Primary outcomes of interest are homelessness, health, education, employment, exposure to violence and risky behaviour. Secondary outcomes are relationships and life skills. A search strategy has been developed that covers eleven databases of published literature in multiple languages. Unpublished literature will also be searched. A meta-analysis will be undertaken if identified studies are suitably heterogenous. Risk of bias will be assessed using tools appropriate to the study methodology. Outcomes across studies will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.Discussion:Previous reviews were unable to identify any programs or interventions, backed by methodologically rigorous research, that improve outcomes for this population. This review seeks to update this previous work, taking into account changes in the provision of extended care, which is now available in some jurisdictions. Trial Registration:PROSPERO: CRD42020146999

Implementation science has undergone an impressive development in the past two decades. A great many concepts and models have been developed suggesting to include the essentials of high-quality implementation practice; critical discussions have explored the types of measures and designs needed to reliably and validly generate high-quality implementation research that pushes the field forward; and an impressive number of empirical studies have been published, reflecting both an increasing amount of resources invested in implementation science and a growing knowledge base enabling the further development of the discipline. This chapter introduces some of the pertinent questions that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers will face when entering into a new – and third – decade of implementation science. As such, it offers readers a platform from which to start their journey toward implementation science 3.0.

Background Recent reviews of the use and application of implementation frameworks in implementation efforts highlight the limited use of frameworks, despite the value in doing so. As such, this article aims to provide recommendations to enhance the application of implementation frameworks, for implementation researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners. Discussion Ideally, an implementation framework, or multiple frameworks should be used prior to and throughout an implementation effort. This includes both in implementation science research studies and in real-world implementation projects. To guide this application, outlined are ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks across the implementation process. The recommendations have been written in the rough chronological order of an implementation effort; however, we understand these may vary depending on the project or context: (1) select a suitable framework(s), (2) establish and maintain community stakeholder engagement and partnerships, (3) define issue and develop research or evaluation questions and hypotheses, (4) develop an implementation mechanistic process model or logic model, (5) select research and evaluation methods (6) determine implementation factors/determinants, (7) select and tailor, or develop, implementation strategy(s), (8) specify implementation outcomes and evaluate implementation, (9) use a framework(s) at micro level to conduct and tailor implementation, and (10) write the proposal and report. Ideally, a framework(s) would be applied to each of the recommendations. For this article, we begin by discussing each recommendation within the context of frameworks broadly, followed by specific examples using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Summary The use of conceptual and theoretical frameworks provides a foundation from which generalizable implementation knowledge can be advanced. On the contrary, superficial use of frameworks hinders being able to use, learn from, and work sequentially to progress the field. Following the provided ten recommendations, we hope to assist researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners to improve the use of implementation science frameworks.

Background & objectives Implementation frameworks are designed to articulate the actions and behaviors considered necessary for successful implementation of interventions, programs or services. Such frameworks have been increasingly used in social services for children, youth and families (which include family and parenting support, out-of-home care (foster care) placements, child protection, family violence, juvenile justice and community services). The purposes of this review were (a) to identify studies employing an implementation framework in this field; (b) map the literature to better understand these frameworks and the ways in which they are being applied; (c) to ascertain the ways in which implementation frameworks are being tested; and (d) to describe the current state of evidence surrounding their use in the field. Method For this scoping review, searches of the literature were conducted within PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ASSIA, Embase, Embase Classic, Social Work Abstracts, ERIC and Sociological Abstracts. Databases were searched for published, peer reviewed English language evaluation studies that applied - and reported on this application - implementation frameworks in the child, youth and family service sector. No limits were placed on years. Any type of study design was eligible from single case studies to randomized controlled trials. Results Out of a total of 8541 publications located, thirty-three met the inclusion criteria. They included eight frameworks that have been applied in the sector. Few of the identified frameworks were based on rigorous research designs. Common strategies used within the frameworks included staging implementation, key influences (e.g., competencies, organizational factors, leadership), stakeholder identification and engagement, and capacity measurement and building. Rarely were these approaches theoretically grounded or fully developed, and limited information was provided about their characteristics, development or interconnectedness. In short, research underpinning frameworks and their use has been meager, especially considering their proliferation in the field. Conclusions This review identifies a need to strengthen the conceptualization of core strategies that are integrated into implementation frameworks, including an articulation of their underlying logic. In the future, implementation science and practice may gain from moving away from comprehensive and complex implementation frameworks towards a more flexible, modular approach to implementation based on the application and combination of effective ‘implementation core strategies’. Future research may also draw a more complete picture of the state of implementation frameworks by expanding search terms to also include other sectors and domains into systematic reviews.

Background While there is some guidance to support the adaptation of evidence-based public health interventions, little is known about adaptation in practice and how to best support public health practitioners in its operationalization. This study explored public health researchers’ and practitioners’ views on available adaptation frameworks, identified potential improvements to increase the application of such guidance and identified opportunities to advance the adaptation literature to improve implementation of public health initiatives and achieve public health outcomes. Methods This qualitative study was undertaken with researchers, methodologists, policy makers and practitioners representing various public health expert organizations and universities internationally. Participants attended a face to face workshop in Newcastle, Australia in October 2018 where structured facilitated focus group discussions and small group activities were undertaken. Two qualitative methods - World Café and Appreciative Inquiry - were used to explore participants’ experiences of and opinions about adaptation frameworks, and to elicit suggestions for practical, detailed solutions to address identified gaps. Results Participants reported a number of limitations with current guidance including a lack of detail on ‘how’ to adapt, limited information on adaptation of implementation strategies and a number of structural issues with the wording and recommended order of adaptation framework elements. Participants noted that the generation of overarching principles that could be applied together with existing frameworks and/or related resources provides a practical way of supporting adaptation decisions in practice. Finally, participants identified a number of opportunities to further advance the field, including the building of an empirical evidence base on adaptation, advancing adaptation methods and developing data collection systems to capture adaptations. Conclusions This study provides an overview of expert views regarding existing frameworks for adaptation and their ability to be applied in practice. It identified a number of limitations, and suggests overarching principles to be applied when adapting public health initiatives.

Over the last 20 years, there has been a growing emphasis on developing and identifying evidence-based programs and practices for children and families and within the last decade an increasing number of federally funded initiatives have been dedicated to replicating and scaling evidence-based programs with the hope of achieving socially meaningful impact. However, only recently have efforts to promote high-fidelity implementation been given the attention needed to ensure evidence-based practices are used as intended and generate the outcomes they were designed to produce. In this article, we propose that the wide-scale implementation of evidence-based practices requires: (1) careful assessment and selection of the "what"; (2) a stage-based approach that provides adequate time and resources for planning and installation activities; (3) the co-creation of a visible infrastructure by a triad of key stakeholders including funders and policymakers, program developers, and implementing sites; and (4) the use of data to guide decision-making and foster curiosity into continuous improvement among grantees. Each of these strategies is explored in greater detail through the lens of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Program, a $100 million initiative overseen by the Office of Adolescent Health (OAH) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.