Mindfulness Interventions in Low-Income Schools: A Scoping Review of Implementation Barriers and Facilitators

BackgroundIn recent years, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions have increasingly been studied and show potential. Despite the potential of digital health services, their use in primary care is lagging. A thorough implementation is needed, including the development of implementation strategies that potentially improve the use of digital health services in primary care. The first step in designing implementation strategies that fit the local context is to gain insight into determinants that influence implementation for patients and health care professionals. Until now, no systematic overview has existed of barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting.ObjectiveThis systematic literature review aims to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for eligible qualitative and mixed methods studies up to March 2024. Methodological quality of the qualitative component of the included studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A framework synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation was conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). All identified CFIR constructs were given a reliability rating (high, medium, or low) to assess the consistency of reporting across each construct.ResultsOverall, 35 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Methodological quality was high in 34 studies and medium in 1 study. Barriers (–) of and facilitators (+) to implementation were identified in all 5 CFIR domains: “digital health characteristics” (ie, commercial neutral [+], privacy and safety [–], specificity [+], and good usability [+]), “outer setting” (ie, acceptance by stakeholders [+], lack of health care guidelines [–], and external financial incentives [–]), “inner setting” (ie, change of treatment routines [+ and –], information incongruence (–), and support from colleagues [+]), “characteristics of the healthcare professionals” (ie, health care professionals’ acceptance [+ and –] and job satisfaction [+ and –]), and the “implementation process” (involvement [+] and justification and delegation [–]). All identified constructs and subconstructs of the CFIR had a high reliability rating. Some identified determinants that influence implementation may be facilitators in certain cases, whereas in others, they may be barriers.ConclusionsBarriers and facilitators were identified across all 5 CFIR domains, suggesting that the implementation process can be complex and requires implementation strategies across all CFIR domains. Stakeholders, including digital health intervention developers, health care professionals, health care organizations, health policy makers, health care funders, and researchers, can consider the identified barriers and facilitators to design tailored implementation strategies after prioritization has been carried out in their local context.

BackgroundThe Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a determinants framework that may require adaptation or contextualization to fit the needs of implementation scientists in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The purpose of this review is to characterize how the CFIR has been applied in LMIC contexts, to evaluate the utility of specific constructs to global implementation science research, and to identify opportunities to refine the CFIR to optimize utility in LMIC settings.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to evaluate the use of the CFIR in LMICs. Citation searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. Data abstraction included study location, study design, phase of implementation, manner of implementation (ex., data analysis), domains and constructs used, and justifications for use, among other variables. A standardized questionnaire was sent to the corresponding authors of included studies to determine which CFIR domains and constructs authors found to be compatible with use in LMICs and to solicit feedback regarding ways in which CFIR performance could be improved for use in LMICs.ResultsOur database search yielded 504 articles, of which 34 met final inclusion criteria. The studies took place across 21 countries and focused on 18 different health topics. The studies primarily used qualitative study designs (68%). Over half (59%) of the studies applied the CFIR at study endline, primarily to guide data analysis or to contextualize study findings. Nineteen (59%) of the contacted authors participated in the survey. Authors unanimously identified culture and engaging as compatible with use in global implementation research. Only two constructs, patient needs and resources and individual stages of change were commonly identified as incompatible with use. Author feedback centered on team level influences on implementation, as well as systems characteristics, such as health system architecture. We propose a “Characteristics of Systems” domain and eleven novel constructs be added to the CFIR to increase its compatibility for use in LMICs.ConclusionsThese additions provide global implementation science practitioners opportunities to account for systems-level determinants operating independently of the implementing organization. Newly proposed constructs require further reliability and validity assessments.Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42018095762

PurposeThe KLIK Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) portal is an evidence-based intervention implemented in clinical practice in > 25 Dutch hospitals for patients (children and adults) who regularly visit the outpatient clinic. Implementation science frameworks can be used to understand why implementation succeeded or failed, to structure barriers and enablers, and to develop implementation strategies to overcome barriers. This paper aimed to (A) retrospectively describe determinants of successful KLIK PROM implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and (B) identify current barriers and match implementation strategies.Methods(A) The KLIK implementation process was described retrospectively based on literature and experience, using the 39 CFIR constructs organized in five general domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and implementation process. (B) The CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Implementation Strategy Matching tool identified current barriers in the KLIK implementation and matched implementation strategies that addressed the identified barriers.Results(A) The most prominent determinants of successful KLIK PROM implementation lie in the following CFIR domains: intervention characteristics (e.g., easy to use), characteristics of individuals (e.g., motivation), and process of implementation (e.g., support). (B) 13 CFIR constructs were identified as current barriers for implementing the KLIK PROM portal. The highest overall advised ERIC strategy for the specific KLIK barriers was to identify and prepare champions.ConclusionUsing an implementation science framework, e.g., CFIR, is recommended for groups starting to use PROMs in clinical care as it offers a structured approach and provides insight into possible enablers and barriers.

Although the incidence of cervical cancer has been decreasing in the United States over the last decade, Hispanic and African American women have substantially higher rates than Caucasian women. The human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary, although insufficient, cause of cervical cancer. In the United States in 2013, only 37.6% of girls 13 to 17 years of age received the recommended 3 doses of a vaccine that is almost 100% efficacious for preventing infection with viruses that are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers. Implementation research has been underutilized in interventions for increasing vaccine uptake. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), an approach for designing effective implementation strategies, integrates 5 domains that may include barriers and facilitators of HPV vaccination. These include the innovative practice (Intervention), communities where youth and parents live (Outer Setting), agencies offering vaccination (Inner Setting), health care staff (Providers), and planned execution and evaluation of intervention delivery (Implementation Process). Secondary qualitative analysis of transcripts of interviews with 30 community health care providers was conducted using the CFIR to code potential barriers and facilitators of HPV vaccination implementation. All CFIR domains except Implementation Process were well represented in providers' statements about challenges and supports for HPV vaccination. A comprehensive implementation framework for promoting HPV vaccination may increase vaccination rates in ethnically diverse communities. This study suggests that the CFIR can be used to guide clinicians in planning implementation of new approaches to increasing HPV vaccine uptake in their settings. Further research is needed to determine whether identifying implementation barriers and facilitators in all 5 CFIR domains as part of developing an intervention contributes to improved HPV vaccination rates.

There is a need for the application of theory in understanding the use of evidence from economic evaluations in healthcare decision making. The purpose of this study is to review the published literature on the use of evidence from economic evaluations for healthcare decision making and to map the findings to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A systematic search strategy was used to identify studies investigating the factors that determine the use of evidence from economic evaluation in healthcare decision making. Barriers and facilitators identified in the included studies were mapped across the five CFIR domains, with the "intervention" referring to the use of economic evaluations in decision making. Gaps, inconsistencies and emergent relations were identified through the mapping process. Fifty-three studies met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The CFIR constructs associated with the Intervention Characteristics and those associated with the knowledge and beliefs of users of economic evaluations were widely cited in the identified barriers and facilitators. Other constructs from the CFIR had not been reported in the literature, such as 'organisational networks' and 'individual stage of change'. Most of the stages in the implementation process as described by the CFIR were reflected in the identified barriers and facilitators. By categorising barriers and facilitators into domains, the CFIR provides a systematic approach to assess how these factors interact. Literature gaps in the literature regarding the use of economic evaluation in healthcare decision making were identified, specifically issues regarding organisational networks and the role of feedback. Through mapping findings from studies of the use of evidence from economic evaluations in healthcare decision making, we present an implementation framework based on the CFIR for understanding the use of economic evaluations into practice.

BackgroundAmid the current burden of non-communicable (NCD) diseases in Malaysia, there is a growing demand for more efficient service delivery of primary healthcare. A complex intervention is proposed to improve NCD management in Malaysia. This exploratory study aimed to assess primary healthcare providers’ receptiveness towards change prior to implementation of the proposed complex intervention.MethodThis study was conducted using an exploratory qualitative approach on purposely selected healthcare providers at primary healthcare clinics. Twenty focus group discussions and three in-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Consent was obtained prior to interviews and for audio-recordings. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework comprised of five major domains promoting implementation theory development and verification across multiple contexts.ResultsThe study revealed via CFIR that most primary healthcare providers were receptive towards any proposed changes or intervention for the betterment of NCD care management. However, many challenges were outlined across four CFIR domains—intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics—that included perceived barriers to implementation. Perception of issues that triggered proposed changes reflected the current situation, including existing facilitating aspects that can support the implementation of any future intervention. The importance of strengthening the primary healthcare delivery system was also expressed.ConclusionUnderstanding existing situations faced at the primary healthcare setting is imperative prior to implementation of any intervention. Healthcare providers’ receptiveness to change was explored, and using CFIR framework, challenges or perceived barriers among healthcare providers were identified. CFIR was able to outline the clinics’ setting, individual behaviour and external agency factors that have direct impact to the organisation. These are important indicators in ensuring feasibility, effectiveness and sustainability of any intervention, as well as future scalability considerations.

BackgroundImplementation researchers often combine the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) in their studies. However there is some debate on the merits of using multiple frameworks—whether they contribute to results or provide superfluous analysis. Our recent research combined the TDF and CFIR to identify determinants to widespread incorporation of patient held medication lists (PHML) in healthcare practice. The aim of this report is to provide guidance on the use of the TDF and CFIR; by assessing the degree of overlap between the two frameworks in their application to interviews about PHML.MethodsSemi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and non HCPs (people taking multiple medicines and caregivers).Interview data were transcribed and analysed using the TDF and CFIR. Within paired domains substantial intersection/overlap across constructs and domains within the two frameworks was classified as > 75% of coding references, consistent intersection/overlap was defined as > 50% and ≤ 75%, average intersection/overlap was defined as ≤ 50% and > 25% and non-substantial intersection/overlap was classified as ≤ 25% of coding references.ResultsInterview data were collected from 39 participants – 21 HCPs and 18 non HCPs.Mapping of TDF domains to CFIR domains/constructs identified key determinants in six TDF domains: Environmental context & resources, Beliefs about capabilities, Beliefs about consequences, Social influences, Behavioural regulation and Social/professional role & identity; and five CFIR domains: Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individual and Process. A pattern of substantial intersection/overlap in coding emerged with broad TDF domains such as Environmental context & resources often linked to well-defined CFIR domains and constructs (e.g. design quality & packaging within Intervention Characteristics). Broad CFIR constructs such as knowledge & beliefs about intervention within Characteristics of Individuals also linked to more descriptive TDF domains like Beliefs about capabilities. In addition there was some unexpected non-substantial intersection/overlap in coding with the TDF domain Social influences less frequently linked to the CFIR Inner Setting domain and constructs such as networks and communications.ConclusionsIdentifying intersections/overlaps in coding between CFIR and TDF can assist interpretation of findings in implementation research. The strengths of each framework were exploited in a reciprocal process which provided more information to broad/poorly defined domains and enabled identification of implementation determinants and innovation determinants.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-023-00466-8.

BackgroundImplementation researchers recognize the influential role of organizational factors and, thus, seek to assess these factors using quantitative measurement instruments. However, researchers are hindered by instruments that measure similar constructs but rely on different nomenclature and/or definitions. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) provides a taxonomy of constructs derived from prior frameworks and empirical studies of implementation-related constructs. The CFIR includes constructs based on the original Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework which highlights the key roles of strength of evidence for a specific evidence-based intervention (EBI), favorability of organizational context for change, and capacities to facilitate implementation of the EBI. Although the CFIR is among the most frequently used implementation frameworks, it does not include quantitative measures. The Organizational Resource and Context Assessment (ORCA) is a quantitative measurement instrument that was developed based on PARiHS, assessing its three domains. Factors within these three domains are conceptually similar to constructs in the CFIR but do not match directly. The aim of this work was to map ORCA survey items to CFIR constructs to enable direct comparisons and syntheses of findings across studies using the CFIR and/or ORCA.MethodsTwo distinct, independent research teams, each used rigorous constant comparative techniques with deliberation and consensus to map individual items from the ORCA to the five domains and 39 constructs of CFIR.ResultsORCA items were mapped primarily to three of five CFIR domains: Inner Setting, Process, and Intervention Characteristics. The two research teams agreed on 88% of mappings at the higher domain level; at the lower construct level, their mappings aligned for 62.2% of the ORCA items.ConclusionsMapping results reveal that the ORCA focuses measurement prominently on Inner Setting, Process, and Intervention Characteristics. This mapping guide can help improve consistency in measurement and reporting, enabling more efficient comparison and synthesis of findings that use either the ORCA instrument or the CFIR framework. The guide helps advance implementation science utilizing mixed methods by providing CFIR users with quantitative measures for selected constructs and enables ORCA users to map their findings to CFIR constructs.

BackgroundMany evidence-based interventions (EBIs) found to be effective in research studies often fail to translate into meaningful patient outcomes in practice. The purpose of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers that affect the implementation of three EBIs to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in an urban federally qualified health center (FQHC) and offer actionable recommendations to improve future implementation efforts.MethodsWe conducted 16 semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to describe diverse stakeholders’ implementation experience. The interviews were conducted in the participant’s clinic, audio-taped, and professionally transcribed for analysis.ResultsWe used the five CFIR domains and 39 constructs and subconstructs as a coding template to conduct a template analysis. Based on experiences with the implementation of three EBIs, stakeholders described barriers and facilitators related to the intervention characteristics, outer setting, and inner setting. Implementation barriers included (1) perceived burden and provider fatigue with EHR (Electronic Health Record) provider reminders, (2) unreliable and ineffectual EHR provider reminders, (3) challenges to providing health care services to diverse patient populations, (4) lack of awareness about CRC screening among patients, (5) absence of CRC screening goals, (6) poor communication on goals and performance, and (7) absence of printed materials for frontline implementers to educate patients. Implementation facilitators included (1) quarterly provider assessment and feedback reports provided real-time data to motivate change, (2) integration with workflow processes, (3) pressure from funding requirement to report quality measures, (4) peer pressure to achieve high performance, and (5) a culture of teamwork and patient-centered mentality.ConclusionsThe CFIR can be used to conduct a post-implementation formative evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators that influenced the implementation. Furthermore, the CFIR can provide a template to organize research data and synthesize findings. With its clear terminology and meta-theoretical framework, the CFIR has the potential to promote knowledge-building for implementation. By identifying the contextual determinants, we can then determine implementation strategies to facilitate adoption and move EBIs to daily practice.

Background: African American and Hispanic women have substantially higher rates of cervical cancer incidence and mortality than White women. Methods: A community-based participatory research (CBPR) project was undertaken to develop, implement and evaluate a culturally-tailored provider intervention to increase uptake of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine among African American and Hispanic adolescents aged 9-18 years and appropriate cervical cancer screening in their mothers. This CBPR is a collaboration between Meharry Medical College, Tennessee State University (TSU), three community health centers in Nashville, Memphis and Chattanooga, and a Community Advisory Board. The current project re-examined provider interview data obtained for developing the intervention to seek information about potential facilitators and barriers to implementation. The study was also undertaken to inform development of follow-up provider interview questions to assess organizational, provider, and intervention characteristics that might enhance or impede implementation with the aim of improving implementation outcomes. Investigators conducted 20-30 minute interviews in-person or via telephone with 38 providers from four project sites. Three were community health centers located in Memphis, Chattanooga, and Nashville TN, and one was at a historically Black medical school in Nashville. Individuals in the convenience sample were interviewed between August 2009 and July 2001. Narrative analysis of transcribed interviews was used to identify (a) provider attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to HPV vaccine, and (b) provider perceptions of organizational or cultural factors that might affect implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, and sustainability of the intervention. The approach was primarily holistic (as contrasted with a categorical) approach in that provider remarks were interpreted in the overall context of the project. A coding framework based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was developed in Excel. Two investigators completed the coding of all interviews and generated composite analyses of each interview and of each coding category. The results of all 38 interviews were summarized as responses to the research objectives. Results: While initial interview questions were developed to inform design of the intervention, this study determined that narrative analysis of interview transcriptions yielded information about all five CFIR domains that may be related to facilitators and barriers of implementation: (1) Intervention: Provider support for HPV vaccine and engaging educational material was strong. (2) Outer setting: Providers described a variety of their patient population's needs, preferences, and cultural/social contexts that may impact implementation. (3) Inner setting: The intervention takes into account provider workflow needs. However, there are likely to be implementation challenges associated with clinic structures and procedures. (4) Provider characteristics: Some provider beliefs and provider-patient communication strategies may facilitate implementation more than others. (5) Process: The CBPR approach may enhance the adoption of the intervention. Conclusion: Narrative analysis of provider interviews yields rich information regarding facilitators and barriers to implementing a comprehensive provider intervention to facilitate receipt of the HPV vaccine in project sites. Additional provider training in strategic listening and motivational interviewing may improve individual and organizational capacity to increase HPV vaccine uptake in African American and Hispanic adolescents in settings in which the intervention is offered. Citation Format: Rebecca Selove, Maya Foster, Maureen Sanderson, Pamela Hull. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify potential facilitators and barriers of an intervention to increase HPV vaccine uptake. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Sixth AACR Conference: The Science of Cancer Health Disparities; Dec 6–9, 2013; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23(11 Suppl):Abstract nr B64. doi:10.1158/1538-7755.DISP13-B64

Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this study aimed to identify factors that influence implementation of evidence-based provider and client-oriented strategies to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in safety net health systems. Site visits and key informant interviews (n=33) were conducted with project leaders and staff in five health systems funded by an American Cancer Society grants program. Within- and cross-site analyses identified CFIR constructs that influenced implementation of provider and client-oriented strategies to promote CRC screening through colonoscopies and fecal immunochemical tests. Of the five CFIR domains, constructs within four CFIR domains (inner setting, outer setting, individual characteristics and process domains) were particularly salient in discussions of implementation while constructs within one CFIR domain (characteristics of the intervention) were not. This study provides a detailed description of how facilitating and inhibiting factors influenced the implementation of evidence-based practices related to CRC screening within safety net health systems. These findings can inform future efforts to promote evidence-based strategies to increase CRC screening rates in safety net health systems.

BackgroundChronic health conditions are affecting an increasing number of individuals, who experience various symptoms that decrease their quality of life. Digital communication interventions that enable patients to report their symptoms have been shown to positively impact chronic disease management by improving access to care, patient-provider communication, clinical outcomes, and health-related quality of life. These interventions have the potential to prepare patients and health care providers (HCPs) before visits and improve patient-provider communication. Despite the recent rapid development and increasing number of digital communication interventions that have shown positive research results, barriers to realizing the benefits offered through these types of interventions still exist.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to prepare for the implementation of a digital patient-provider communication intervention in the daily workflow at 2 outpatient clinics by identifying potential determinants of implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to tailor the use of digital communication intervention to the intended context and identify key aspects for an implementation plan.MethodsA combination of focus groups, workshops, and project steering committee meetings was conducted with HCPs (n=14) and patients (n=2) from 2 outpatient clinics at a university hospital. The CFIR was used to guide data collection and analysis. Transcripts, written minutes, and notes were analyzed and coded into 5 CFIR domains using thematic analysis.ResultsData were examined and analyzed into 18 CFIR constructs relevant to the study purpose. On the basis of the identified determinants, important intervention tailoring includes adjustments to the digital features and adjustments to fit the clinical workflow and a decision to conduct a future pilot study. Furthermore, it was decided to provide the intervention to patients as early as possible in their disease trajectory, with tailored information about its use. Key aspects for the implementation plan encompassed maintaining the identified engagement and positive attitude, involving key stakeholders in the implementation process, and providing the needed support and training.ConclusionsThis study offers insight into the involvement of stakeholders in the tailoring and implementation planning of a digital communication intervention in clinical practice. Stakeholder involvement in the identification of implementation facilitators and barriers can contribute to the tailoring of digital communication interventions and how they are used and can also inform systematic and targeted implementation planning.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic.MethodsWe used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes.ResultsAmong the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles.ConclusionsThrough applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

IntroductionThe Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a commonly used implementation science framework to facilitate design, evaluation, and implementation of evidence‐based interventions. Its comprehensiveness is an asset for considering facilitators and barriers to implementation and also makes the framework cumbersome to use. We describe adaptations we made to CFIR to simplify its pragmatic application, for use in a learning health system context, in the evaluation of a complex patient‐centered care transformation.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study and structured our evaluation questions, data collection methods, analysis, and reporting around CFIR. We collected qualitative data via semi‐structured interviews and observations with key stakeholders throughout. We identified and documented adaptations to CFIR throughout the evaluation process.ResultsWe analyzed semi‐structured interviews with key stakeholders (n = 23) from clinical observations (n = 5). We made three key adaptations to CFIR: (a) promoted “patient needs and resources,” a subconstruct of the outer setting, to its own domain within CFIR during data analysis; (b) divided the “inner setting” domain into three layers that account for the hierarchy of health care systems (i. pilot clinic, ii. peer clinics, and iii. overarching health care system); and (c) tailored several construct definitions to fit a patient‐centered, primary care setting. Analysis yielded qualitative findings concentrated in the CFIR domains “intervention characteristics” and “outer setting,” with a robust number of findings in the new domain “patient needs and resources.”ConclusionsTo make CFIR more accessible and relevant for wider use in the context of patient‐centered care transformations within a learning health system, a few adaptations are key. Specifically, we found success by teasing apart interactions across the inner layers of a health system, tailoring construct definitions, and placing additional focus on patient needs.

BackgroundOver 60 implementation frameworks exist. Using multiple frameworks may help researchers to address multiple study purposes, levels, and degrees of theoretical heritage and operationalizability; however, using multiple frameworks may result in unnecessary complexity and redundancy if doing so does not address study needs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) are both well-operationalized, multi-level implementation determinant frameworks derived from theory. As such, the rationale for using the frameworks in combination (i.e., CFIR + TDF) is unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to elucidate the rationale for using CFIR + TDF by (1) describing studies that have used CFIR + TDF, (2) how they used CFIR + TDF, and (2) their stated rationale for using CFIR + TDF.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review to identify studies that mentioned both the CFIR and the TDF, were written in English, were peer-reviewed, and reported either a protocol or results of an empirical study in MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, or Google Scholar. We then abstracted data into a matrix and analyzed it qualitatively, identifying salient themes.FindingsWe identified five protocols and seven completed studies that used CFIR + TDF. CFIR + TDF was applied to studies in several countries, to a range of healthcare interventions, and at multiple intervention phases; used many designs, methods, and units of analysis; and assessed a variety of outcomes. Three studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple study purposes. Six studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple conceptual levels. Four studies did not explicitly state their rationale for using CFIR + TDF.ConclusionsDifferences in the purposes that authors of the CFIR (e.g., comprehensive set of implementation determinants) and the TDF (e.g., intervention development) propose help to justify the use of CFIR + TDF. Given that the CFIR and the TDF are both multi-level frameworks, the rationale that using CFIR + TDF is needed to address multiple conceptual levels may reflect potentially misleading conventional wisdom. On the other hand, using CFIR + TDF may more fully define the multi-level nature of implementation. To avoid concerns about unnecessary complexity and redundancy, scholars who use CFIR + TDF and combinations of other frameworks should specify how the frameworks contribute to their study.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42015027615