Advance Implementation Science Research Articles

Clinician and patient experiences with shared decision-making to promote daily arm use for individuals with chronic stroke: an exploratory qualitative study

PurposeTo explore the attitudes and experiences of clinicians and individuals with chronic stroke on the use of shared decision-making (SDM) during upper extremity rehabilitation to improve daily arm use in the home environment. Specifically, we aimed to describe clinician and client perspectives regarding the facilitators and barriers to using SDM within the context of a self-directed upper extremity intervention for individuals living in the community with chronic stroke.MethodsData were collected within the context of an interventional study examining the feasibility of the Use My Arm-Remote intervention. Focus group interviews were conducted with the clinicians (n = 3) providing the intervention and individual semi-structured interviews with the participants (n = 15) of the study. All interview data were collected after the end of the intervention period. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe following themes were identified: (1) Equal partnership; (2) Enhancing clinician confidence; and (3) This is different. Facilitators and barriers were identified within each theme. Key facilitators for clinicians were competence with SDM and patient characteristics; while facilitators for patients were open and trusting relationships with clinicians and personalized experience. Key barriers to SDM for clinicians were lack of expertise in SDM and participant buy in; while patients identified a lack of foundational knowledge of stroke rehabilitation as a potential barrier.ConclusionsKey barriers were analyzed using the consolidated framework for advancing implementation science to interpret results and identify strategies for enhancing the implementation of SDM in a virtual setting. The CFIR-ERIC tool highlighted the need for targeted educational meetings and materials to address the training and educational needs of both clinicians and patients for future iterations of this intervention.

Leveraging systems science and design thinking to advance implementation science: moving toward a solution-oriented paradigm.

Many public health challenges are characterized by complexity that reflects the dynamic systems in which they occur. Such systems involve multiple interdependent factors, actors, and sectors that influence health, and are a primary driver of challenges of insufficient implementation, sustainment, and scale of evidence-based public health interventions. Implementation science frameworks have been developed to help embed evidence-based interventions in diverse settings and identify key factors that facilitate or hinder implementation. These frameworks are largely static in that they do not explain the nature and dynamics of interrelationships among the identified determinants, nor how those determinants might change over time. Furthermore, most implementation science frameworks are top-down, deterministic, and linear, leaving critical gaps in understanding of both how to intervene on determinants of successful implementation and how to scale evidence-based solutions. Design thinking and systems science offer methods for transforming this problem-oriented paradigm into one that is solution-oriented. This article describes these two approaches and how they can be integrated into implementation science strategies to promote implementation, sustainment, and scaling of public health innovation, ultimately resulting in transformative systems changes that improve population health.

Building CapaCITY/É for sustainable transportation: protocol for an implementation science research program in healthy cities

IntroductionImproving sustainable transportation options will help cities tackle growing challenges related to population health, congestion, climate change and inequity. Interventions supporting active transportation face many practical and political hurdles. Implementation...

Leveraging artificial intelligence to advance implementation science: potential opportunities and cautions.

The field of implementation science was developed to address the significant time delay between establishing an evidence-based practice and its widespread use. Although implementation science has contributed much toward bridging this gap, the evidence-to-practice chasm remains a challenge. There are some key aspects of implementation science in which advances are needed, including speed and assessing causality and mechanisms. The increasing availability of artificial intelligence applications offers opportunities to help address specific issues faced by the field of implementation science and expand its methods. This paper discusses the many ways artificial intelligence can address key challenges in applying implementation science methods while also considering potential pitfalls to the use of artificial intelligence. We answer the questions of "why" the field of implementation science should consider artificial intelligence, for "what" (the purpose and methods), and the "what" (consequences and challenges). We describe specific ways artificial intelligence can address implementation science challenges related to (1) speed, (2) sustainability, (3) equity, (4) generalizability, (5) assessing context and context-outcome relationships, and (6) assessing causality and mechanisms. Examples are provided from global health systems, public health, and precision health that illustrate both potential advantages and hazards of integrating artificial intelligence applications into implementation science methods. We conclude by providing recommendations and resources for implementation researchers and practitioners to leverage artificial intelligence in their work responsibly. Artificial intelligence holds promise to advance implementation science methods ("why") and accelerate its goals of closing the evidence-to-practice gap ("purpose"). However, evaluation of artificial intelligence's potential unintended consequences must be considered and proactively monitored. Given the technical nature of artificial intelligence applications as well as their potential impact on the field, transdisciplinary collaboration is needed and may suggest the need for a subset of implementation scientists cross-trained in both fields to ensure artificial intelligence is used optimally and ethically.

Partnership-building considerations for implementation science in learning health systems: a case study of the Implementation Science Collaborative in Alberta, Canada.

Implementation of health innovations is inherently collaborative, requiring trans-sectoral partnerships between implementation researchers, innovation teams, and implementation practitioners. Implementation science has been shown to improve implementation successes; however, challenges that hinder partnerships to advance implementation science continue to persist. Using a whole-system approach to assess and respond to implementation science partnership barriers may shed light on effective responses. We conducted a case study of Alberta's learning health system, using semi-structured group and individual interviews to create a nuanced understanding of the considerations required for implementation research collaborations. We interviewed 53 participants representing 21 offices in the health system, academia, professional associations, and government who regularly plan, evaluate, and/or study health system implementation initiatives in Alberta. Using the Partnership Model for Research Capacity Building, we identified current facilitators and challenges for partnerships for conducting and using implementation science, at different levels of Alberta's health-research ecosystem. Alberta's healthcare system is well set up to readily embed intervention effectiveness and efficacy research. Infrastructure was also in place to strengthen implementation practice. However, weaknesses around exchanging knowledge and skills, providing feedback and mentoring, and accommodating diversity affected the ability of both individuals and teams to build implementation science capacity. Without this capacity, teams could not participate in embedded implementation research collaborations. We report the response of the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit to these barriers to provide practical guidance on various program options to strengthen individual- and organization-level implementation science capacity. This study applied a whole-system approach to assess factors across Alberta's health-research ecosystem, which affect partnerships to advance implementation science. Our findings illustrated that partnership considerations go beyond interpersonal factors and include system-wide considerations. With the results, health organization leaders have (1) a method for assessing organizational capability to readily embed implementation research and (2) a catalog of potential responses to create conditions to readily engage with implementation science in their day-to-day implementation processes.

Conducting clinical research and embedding person‐centred care into the hospital setting during a global pandemic: Challenges and solutions

AbstractConducting scientific research in the healthcare context is an ongoing challenge. Immediate clinical care and related tasks take priority out of necessity, often in difficult circumstances including unplanned staff absenteeism and turnover, and resource limitations. These challenges are further exacerbated in times of crisis, such as the current worldwide pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). The pandemic disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, such as people living with dementia who rely on aged and healthcare services. Concurrently research studies aiming to improve health and aged care for these people are also being negatively impacted by the pandemic. There is a need for the development of guidelines that will support researchers to implement and maintain quality studies during pandemics, to prevent unnecessary delay in the dissemination of research findings, that have the potential to improve healthcare delivery quality and outcomes.This presentation first highlights the main challenges and solutions that have emerged in a study aiming to improve healthcare for people living with dementia in hospital settings, using evidence‐based person‐centred care. In addition to evaluating health outcomes for people living with dementia and cost‐effectiveness, we are using a knowledge translation framework (Goodenough et al., 2017; Damschroder et al., 2009) to evaluate the implementation of the intervention (process and outcomes) and determine nationwide scalability for hospital ward and care services. Evidence on how to adapt research processes to enable research programs to continue throughout the pandemic will be presented, followed by a set of guidelines to support researchers to engage successfully in clinical research during a pandemic. The guidelines aim to be generalisable to all clinical research projects that have been impacted by the current SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic, as well as projects that may face future similar crises.ReferencesDamschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. 2009. Fostering implementation of health research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 4(50):15 ‐20.Goodenough B, Young M. (2017). Innovation to Implementation for Dementia (i2i4dementia): A Practical Guide to Knowledge Translation in Health Care (with examples from aged care and dementia). Dementia Collaborative Research Centres, Australia. Access: DementiaKT.com.au

Sustainability determinants of an intervention to identify clinical deterioration and improve childhood cancer survival in Latin American hospitals: the INSPIRE study protocol

BackgroundMore than 90% of children with cancer live in low-resourced settings, where survival is only 20%. Sustainable evidence-based (EB) interventions yielding ongoing beneficial patient outcomes are critical to improve childhood cancer survival. A better understanding of factors promoting intervention sustainability in these settings is urgently needed. The aim of this study is to provide an empirical understanding of how clinical capacity for sustainability, or the resources needed to sustain an intervention, impacts the sustainment of Pediatric Early Warning System (PEWS), an EB intervention that improves pediatric oncology outcomes in low-resource hospitals by detecting clinical deterioration and preventing the need for more intense treatment.MethodsWe will conduct a prospective, longitudinal study of approximately 100 resource-variable hospitals implementing and sustaining PEWS participating in Proyecto EVAT, a quality improvement collaborative of Latin American pediatric oncology centers. Aim 1: We will evaluate how clinical capacity for sustainability changes over time through 5 to 9 prospective measurements of capacity via survey of clinical staff using PEWS (approximately n = 13 per center) during the phases of PEWS adoption, implementation, and sustainability using the Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT). Aim 2: We will determine the relationship between capacity and a) PEWS sustainment and b) clinical deterioration mortality among pediatric oncology patients at centers sustaining PEWS for 2 to 10 years using chart review and an existing patient outcomes registry. Aim 3: We will develop novel strategies to promote sustainability by gaining a deeper understanding of perceived challenges to building capacity and PEWS sustainment. In combination with quantitative outcomes, we will conduct 24 focus groups with staff (doctors, nurses, and administrators) from hospitals with both high (n = 4) and low capacity (n = 4). We will then use implementation mapping to generate theoretically driven, empirically-supported sustainability strategies.DiscussionThis study will advance implementation science by providing a theoretically driven, foundational understanding of factors that predict sustainability among a large, diverse cohort of hospitals. We will then use this knowledge to develop sustainability evidence-informed strategies that optimize capacity and promote long-term sustainment of PEWS and improvements in patient outcomes, thus promoting equity in childhood cancer care globally.

Putting co-creation into practice: lessons learned from developing a midwife-led quality improvement intervention

ABSTRACT Background Integrating evidence-based midwifery practices improves healthcare quality for women and newborns, but an evidence-to-practice gap exists. Co-created quality improvement initiatives led by midwives could bridge this gap, prevent resource waste and ensure intervention relevance. However, how to co-create a midwife-led quality improvement intervention has not been scientifically explored. Objective The objective of this study is to describe the co-creation process and explore the needs and determinants of a midwife-led quality improvement targeting evidence-based midwifery practices. Methods A qualitative deductive approach using the Consolidated Framework for Advancing Implementation Science was employed. An analysis matrix based on the framework was developed, and the data were coded according to categories. Data were gathered from interviews, focus group discussions, observations and workshops. New mothers and birth companions (n = 19) were included through convenience sampling. Midwives (n = 26), professional association representatives, educators, policymakers, managers, and doctors (n = 7) were purposely sampled. Results The co-creation process of the midwife-led Quality Improvement intervention took place in four stages. Firstly, core elements of the intervention were established, featuring a group of midwife champions leading a quality improvement initiative using a train-the-trainers approach. Secondly, the intervention needs, context and determinants were explored, which showed knowledge and skills gaps, a lack of shared goals among staff, and limited resources. However, there was clear relevance, compatibility, and mission alignment for a midwife-led quality improvement at all levels. Thirdly, during co-creation workshops with new mothers and companions, the consensus was to prioritise improved intrapartum support, while workshops with midwives identified enhancing the use of birth positions and perineal protection as key focus areas for the forthcoming Quality Improvement intervention. Lastly, the findings guided intervention strategies, including peer-assisted learning, using existing structures, developing educational material, and building stakeholder relationships. Conclusions This study provides a practical example of a co-creation process for a midwife-led quality improvement intervention, which can be relevant in different maternity care settings.

Participatory logic modeling in a multi-site initiative to advance implementation science

BackgroundLogic models map the short-term and long-term outcomes that are expected to occur with a program, and thus are an essential tool for evaluation. Funding agencies, especially in the United States (US), have encouraged the use of logic models among their grantees. They also use logic models to clarify expectations for their own funding initiatives. It is increasingly recognized that logic models should be developed through a participatory approach which allows input from those who carry out the program being evaluated. While there are many positive examples of participatory logic modeling, funders have generally not engaged grantees in developing the logic model associated with their own initiatives. This article describes an instance where a US funder of a multi-site initiative fully engaged the funded organizations in developing the initiative logic model. The focus of the case study is Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3), a multi-year initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute.MethodsThe reflective case study was collectively constructed by representatives of the seven centers funded under ISC3. Members of the Cross-Center Evaluation (CCE) Work Group jointly articulated the process through which the logic model was developed and refined. Individual Work Group members contributed descriptions of how their respective centers reviewed and used the logic model. Cross-cutting themes and lessons emerged through CCE Work Group meetings and the writing process.ResultsThe initial logic model for ISC3 changed in significant ways as a result of the input of the funded groups. Authentic participation in the development of the logic model led to strong buy-in among the centers, as evidenced by their utilization. The centers shifted both their evaluation design and their programmatic strategy to better accommodate the expectations reflected in the initiative logic model.ConclusionsThe ISC3 case study demonstrates how participatory logic modeling can be mutually beneficial to funders, grantees and evaluators of multi-site initiatives. Funded groups have important insights about what is feasible and what will be required to achieve the initiative’s stated objectives. They can also help identify the contextual factors that either inhibit or facilitate success, which can then be incorporated into both the logic model and the evaluation design. In addition, when grantees co-develop the logic model, they have a better understanding and appreciation of the funder’s expectations and thus are better positioned to meet those expectations.

Leveraging Data Science to Advance Implementation Science: The Case of School Mental Health.

Leveraging Data Science to Advance Implementation Science: The Case of School Mental Health.

The community engagement course and action network: strengthening community and academic research partnerships to advance health equity.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions are uniquely positioned to implement community-campus research partnerships based on a history of service, the pursuit of community trustworthiness and student demographics often similar to surrounding marginalized communities. The Morehouse School of Medicine Prevention Research Center collaborates with members of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Serving Institutes, and community organizations on the Community Engaged Course and Action Network. This network is the first of its kind and aims to strengthen members' ability to implement Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) principles and partnerships. Projects address public health priorities including mental health among communities of color, zoonotic disease prevention, and urban food deserts. To assess the effectiveness of the network, a Participatory Evaluation framework was implemented to conduct process evaluation which included review of partnership structures, operations, project implementation processes, and preliminary outcomes of the research collaborations. A focus group of Community Engagement Course and Action Network members (community and academic) was also conducted to identify benefits and challenges of the network with emphasis on key areas for improvement to further enhance the relationships between partners and to facilitate their subsequent community-campus research. Network improvements were tied to themes strengthening community-academic partnerships including sharing and fellowship, coalition building and collaboration, and greater connections and awareness of community needs through their current community-academic partnerships. The need to conduct ongoing evaluation during and after implementation, for determining the early adoption of CBPR approaches was also identified. Evaluation of the network's processes, infrastructure, and operation provides early lessons learned to strengthen the network. Ongoing assessment is also essential for ensuring continuous quality improvement across partnerships such as determining CBPR fidelity, assessing partnership synergy, and dynamics, and for quality improvement of research protocol. The implications and potential for advancing implementation science through this and similar networks are great towards advancing leadership in modeling how foundations in community service can advance to CBPR partnership formation and ultimately, health equity approaches, that are local defined and assessed.

Psychometric evaluation of a pragmatic measure of clinical supervision as an implementation strategy

BackgroundValid and reliable measurement of implementation strategies is essential to advancing implementation science; however, this area lags behind the measurement of implementation outcomes and determinants. Clinical supervision is a promising and highly feasible implementation strategy in behavioral healthcare for which pragmatic measures are lacking. This research aimed to develop and psychometrically evaluate a pragmatic measure of clinical supervision conceptualized in terms of two broadly applicable, discrete clinical supervision techniques shown to improve providers’ implementation of evidence-based psychosocial interventions—(1) audit and feedback and (2) active learning.MethodsItems were generated based on a systematic review of the literature and administered to a sample of 154 outpatient mental health clinicians serving youth and 181 community-based mental health providers serving adults. Scores were evaluated for evidence of reliability, structural validity, construct-related validity, and measurement invariance across the two samples.ResultsIn sample 1, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the hypothesized two-factor structure of scores on the Evidence-Based Clinical Supervision Strategies (EBCSS) scale (χ2=5.89, df=4, p=0.208; RMSEA=0.055, CFI=0.988, SRMR=0.033). In sample 2, CFA replicated the EBCSS factor structure and provided discriminant validity evidence relative to an established supervisory alliance measure (χ2=36.12, df=30, p=0.204; RMSEA=0.034; CFI=0.990; SRMR=0.031). Construct-related validity evidence was provided by theoretically concordant associations between EBCSS subscale scores and agency climate for evidence-based practice implementation in sample 1 (d= .47 and .55) as well as measures of the supervision process in sample 2. Multiple group CFA supported the configural, metric, and partial scalar invariance of scores on the EBCSS across the two samples.ConclusionsScores on the EBCSS provide a valid basis for inferences regarding the extent to which behavioral health providers experience audit and feedback and active learning as part of their clinical supervision in both clinic- and community-based behavioral health settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04096274. Registered on 19 September 2019.

Exploring the intersection of hermeneutics and implementation: a scoping review

BackgroundAn enduring challenge remains about how to effectively implement programs, services, or practices. Too often, implementation does not achieve its intended effectiveness, fidelity, and sustainability, even when frameworks or theories determine implementation strategies and actions. A different approach is needed. This scoping review joined two markedly different bodies of literature: implementation and hermeneutics. Implementation is usually depicted as focused, direct, and somewhat linear, while hermeneutics attends to the messiness of everyday experience and human interaction. Both, however, are concerned with practical solutions to real-life problems. The purpose of the scoping review was to summarize existing knowledge on how a hermeneutic approach has informed the process of implementing health programs, services, or practices.MethodsWe completed a scoping review by taking a Gadamerian hermeneutic approach to the JBI scoping review method. Following a pilot search, we searched eight health-related electronic databases using broadly stated terms such as implementation and hermeneutics. A diverse research team that included a patient and healthcare leader, working in pairs, independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles. Through the use of inclusion criteria and full-team dialogue, we selected the final articles and identified their characteristics, hermeneutic features, and implementation components.ResultsElectronic searches resulted in 2871 unique studies. After full-text screening, we retained six articles that addressed both hermeneutics and implementing a program, service, or practice. The studies varied widely in location, topic, implementation strategies, and hermeneutic approach. All addressed assumptions underpinning implementation, the human dimensions of implementing, power differentials, and knowledge creation during implementation. All studies addressed issues foundational to implementing such as cross-cultural communication and surfacing and addressing tensions during processes of change. The studies showed how creating conceptual knowledge was a precursor to concrete, instrumental knowledge for action and behavioral change. Finally, each study demonstrated how the hermeneutic process of the fusion of horizons created new understandings needed for implementation.ConclusionsHermeneutics and implementation have rarely been combined. The studies reveal important features that can contribute to implementation success. Implementers and implementation research may benefit from understanding, articulating, and communicating hermeneutic approaches that foster the relational and contextual foundations necessary for successful implementation.Trial registrationThe protocol was registered at the Centre for Open Science on September 10, 2019.MacLeod M, Snadden D, McCaffrey G, Zimmer L, Wilson E, Graham I, et al. A hermeneutic approach to advancing implementation science: a scoping review protocol 2019. Accessed at osf.io/eac37.

Opportunities to advance implementation science and nutrition research: a commentary on the Strategic Plan for NIH Nutrition Research.

Despite population-wide recommendations by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans and others to encourage health-promoting dietary patterns, the proportion of Americans following dietary recommendations remains low. The gaps in the adoption and integration of evidence-based dietary interventions, practices, programs, and policies (EBIs) into community and clinical settings signal the need to strengthen efforts in implementation science (IS) in nutrition research to understand and alleviate barriers to adopting and sustaining healthy dietary behaviors and practices. Equally important is the translation of this research into practice in a variety of settings and across the diversity of populations. Recognizing this need, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2020-2030 Strategic Plan for NIH Nutrition Research calls for the expansion of IS as a key opportunity to advancing nutrition research. This commentary highlights three scientific opportunities to stimulate IS in nutrition research and provides examples for each opportunity. These include: (a) Advance consideration of implementation and dissemination early in the design of interventions to facilitate opportunities for equitable scale-up and sustainability of EBIs, (b) Develop and test strategies for equitable implementation of nutrition and diet EBIs in health care and community settings, and (c) Build and strengthen the infrastructure, capacity, and expertise needed to increase use of IS in clinical and community nutrition research to swiftly move the research into practice. By advancing the three opportunities identified in this commentary, the scientific community has the potential to advance the field of nutrition research and IS with the ultimate goal of improving public health.

Required sample size to detect mediation in 3-level implementation studies

BackgroundStatistical tests of mediation are important for advancing implementation science; however, little research has examined the sample sizes needed to detect mediation in 3-level designs (e.g., organization, provider, patient) that are common in implementation research. Using a generalizable Monte Carlo simulation method, this paper examines the sample sizes required to detect mediation in 3-level designs under a range of conditions plausible for implementation studies.MethodStatistical power was estimated for 17,496 3-level mediation designs in which the independent variable (X) resided at the highest cluster level (e.g., organization), the mediator (M) resided at the intermediate nested level (e.g., provider), and the outcome (Y) resided at the lowest nested level (e.g., patient). Designs varied by sample size per level, intraclass correlation coefficients of M and Y, effect sizes of the two paths constituting the indirect (mediation) effect (i.e., X→M and M→Y), and size of the direct effect. Power estimates were generated for all designs using two statistical models—conventional linear multilevel modeling of manifest variables (MVM) and multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM)—for both 1- and 2-sided hypothesis tests.ResultsFor 2-sided tests, statistical power to detect mediation was sufficient (≥0.8) in only 463 designs (2.6%) estimated using MVM and 228 designs (1.3%) estimated using MSEM; the minimum number of highest-level units needed to achieve adequate power was 40; the minimum total sample size was 900 observations. For 1-sided tests, 808 designs (4.6%) estimated using MVM and 369 designs (2.1%) estimated using MSEM had adequate power; the minimum number of highest-level units was 20; the minimum total sample was 600. At least one large effect size for either the X→M or M→Y path was necessary to achieve adequate power across all conditions.ConclusionsWhile our analysis has important limitations, results suggest many of the 3-level mediation designs that can realistically be conducted in implementation research lack statistical power to detect mediation of highest-level independent variables unless effect sizes are large and 40 or more highest-level units are enrolled. We suggest strategies to increase statistical power for multilevel mediation designs and innovations to improve the feasibility of mediation tests in implementation research.

Organization-Level Factors Associated with Changes in the Delivery of the Five A's for Smoking Cessation following the Implementation of a Comprehensive Tobacco-Free Workplace Program within Substance Use Treatment Centers.

Many adults with a substance use disorder smoke cigarettes. However, tobacco use is not commonly addressed in substance use treatment centers. This study examined how provider beliefs about addressing tobacco use during non-nicotine substance use treatment, provider self-efficacy in delivering tobacco use assessments, and perceived barriers to the routine provision of tobacco care were associated with changes in the delivery of the evidence-based five A’s for smoking intervention (asking, advising, assessing, assisting, and arranging) at the organizational level. The data were from 15 substance use treatment centers that implemented a tobacco-free workplace program; data were collected before and after the program’s implementation. Linear regression examined how center-level averages of provider factors (1) at pre-implementation and (2) post- minus pre-implementation were associated with changes in the use of the five A’s for smoking in substance use treatment patients. The results indicated that centers with providers endorsing less agreement that tobacco use should be addressed in non-nicotine substance use treatment and reporting lower self-efficacy for providing tobacco use assessments at pre-implementation were associated with significant increases in asking patients about smoking, assessing interest in quitting and assisting with a quit attempt by post-implementation. Centers reporting more barriers at pre-implementation and centers that had greater reductions in reported barriers to treatment over time had greater increases in assessing patients’ interest in quitting smoking and assisting with a quit attempt by post-implementation. Overall, the centers that had the most to learn regarding addressing patients’ tobacco use had greater changes in their use of the five A’s compared to centers whose personnel were already better informed and trained. Findings from this study advance implementation science and contribute information relevant to reducing the research-to-practice translational gap in tobacco control for a patient group that suffers tobacco-related health disparities.

Sustainability of evidence-based practices in the management of infants with bronchiolitis in hospital settings - a PREDICT study protocol

BackgroundUnderstanding how and why de-implementation of low-value practices is sustained remains unclear. The Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International CollaboraTive (PREDICT) Bronchiolitis Knowledge Translation (KT) Study was a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in 26 Australian and New Zealand hospitals (May-November 2017). Results showed targeted, theory-informed interventions (clinical leads, stakeholder meetings, train-the-trainer workshop, targeted educational package, audit/feedback) were effective at reducing use of five low-value practices for bronchiolitis (salbutamol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, adrenaline and chest x-ray) by 14.1% in acute care settings. The primary aim of this study is to determine the sustainability (continued receipt of benefits) of these outcomes at intervention hospitals two-years after the removal of study supports. Secondary aims are to determine sustainability at one-year after removal of study support at intervention hospitals; improvements one-and-two years at control hospitals; and explore factors that influence sustainability at intervention hospitals and contribute to improvements at control hospitals.MethodsA mixed-methods study design. The quantitative component is a retrospective medical record audit of bronchiolitis management within 24 hours of emergency department (ED) presentations at 26 Australian (n = 20) and New Zealand (n = 6) hospitals, which participated in the PREDICT Bronchiolitis KT Study. Data for a total of 1800 infants from intervention and control sites (up to 150 per site) will be collected to determine if improvements (i.e., no use of all five low-value practices) were sustained two- years (2019) post-trial (primary outcome; composite score); and a further 1800 infants from intervention and control sites will be collected to determine sustained improvements one- year (2018) post-trial (secondary outcome). An a priori definition of sustainability will be used. The qualitative component will consist of semi-structured interviews with three to five key emergency department and paediatric inpatient medical and nursing staff per site (total n = 78-130). Factors that may have contributed to sustaining outcomes and/or interventions will be explored and mapped to an established sustainability framework.DiscussionThis study will improve our understanding of the sustainability of evidence-based bronchiolitis management in infants. Results will also advance implementation science research by informing future de-implementation strategies to reduce low-value practices and sustain practice change in paediatric acute care.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry No: ACTRN12621001287820.

Community engagement to improve access to healthcare: a comparative case study to advance implementation science for transgender health equity

BackgroundRecent calls to action have been made for Implementation Science to attend to health inequities at the intersections of race, gender, and social injustice in the United States. Transgender people, particularly Black and Latina transgender women, experience a range of health inequities and social injustices. In this study, we compared two processes of transgender community engagement in Los Angeles and in Chicago as an implementation strategy to address inequitable access to care; we adapted and extended the Exploration Planning Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) framework for transgender health equity.MethodsA comparative case method and the EPIS framework were used to examine parallel implementation strategies of transgender community engagement to expand access to care. To foster conceptual development and adaptation of EPIS for trans health equity, the comparative case method required detailed description, exploration, and analyses of the community-engagement processes that led to different interventions to expand access. In both cities, the unit of analysis was a steering committee made up of local transgender and cisgender stakeholders.ResultsBoth steering committees initiated their exploration processes with World Café-style, transgender community-engaged events in order to assess community needs and structural barriers to healthcare. The steering committees curated activities that amplified the voices of transgender community members among stakeholders, encouraging more effective and collaborative ways to advance transgender health equity. Based on analysis and findings from the Los Angeles town hall, the steering committee worked with a local medical school, extending the transgender medicine curriculum, and incorporating elements of transgender community-engagement. The Chicago steering committee determined from their findings that the most impactful intervention on structural racism and barriers to healthcare access would be to design and pilot an employment program for Black and Latina transgender women.ConclusionIn Los Angeles and Chicago, transgender community engagement guided implementation processes and led to critical insights regarding specific, local barriers to healthcare. The steering committee itself represented an important vehicle for individual-, organizational-, and community-level relationship and capacity building. This comparative case study highlights key adaptations of EPIS toward the formation of an implementation science framework for transgender health equity.

Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control

BackgroundThe past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute’s Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on ‘health equity and context’ to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions.DiscussionIn the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity.SummaryTo advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.

Comparing two federal financing strategies on penetration and sustainment of the adolescent community reinforcement approach for substance use disorders: protocol for a mixed-method study

BackgroundSustained, widespread availability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) is essential to address the public health and societal impacts of adolescent substance use disorders (SUD). There remains a particularly significant need to identify effective financing strategies, which secure and direct financial resources to support the costs associated with EBP implementation and sustainment. This protocol describes a new project comparing two types of U.S. federal grant mechanisms (i.e., a type of financing strategy), which supported the implementation of the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) EBP for SUD, through either organization-focused or state-focused granting of funds. The Exploration-Preparation-Implementation-Sustainment (EPIS) framework will guide our study aims, hypotheses, and selection of measures.MethodWe will employ a longitudinal, mixed-method (i.e., web surveys, semi-structured interviews, document review, focus groups, administrative data), quasi-experimental design to compare the grant types’ outcomes and examine theoretically informed mediators and moderators. Aim 1 will examine the proportion of eligible clinicians certified in A-CRA with adequate fidelity levels (i.e., penetration outcomes) at the end of grant funding. Aim 2 will examine the sustainment of A-CRA up to 5 years post-funding, using a 10-element composite measure of treatment delivery and supervision activities. We will integrate the new data collected from state-focused grant recipients (~85 organizations in 19 states) with previously collected data from organization-focused grant recipients (Hunter et al., Implement Sci 9:104, 2014) (82 organizations in 26 states) for analysis. We will also use sensitivity analyses to characterize the effects of observed and unobserved secular trends in our quasi-experimental design. Finally, aim 3 will use comparative case study methods (integrating diverse quantitative and qualitative measures) to identify and disseminate policy implications about the roles of state- and organization-focused federal grants in efforts to promote adolescent SUD EBP implementation and sustainment.DiscussionThe proposed research will have direct, practical implications for behavioral health administrators, policymakers, implementation experts, and the public. It will offer new knowledge that can directly inform financing strategies to support large-scale, sustained EBP delivery in behavioral health—while advancing implementation science through the use of novel methods to study financing strategies and sustainment.