Field Of Implementation Science Research Articles

A systematic review to determine the effect of strategies to sustain chronic disease prevention interventions in clinical and community settings: study protocol

BackgroundThe primary purpose of this review is to synthesise the effect of strategies aiming to sustain the implementation of evidenced-based interventions (EBIs) targeting key health behaviours associated with chronic disease (i.e. physical inactivity, poor diet, harmful alcohol use, and tobacco smoking) in clinical and community settings. The field of implementation science is bereft of an evidence base of effective sustainment strategies, and as such, this review will provide important evidence to advance the field of sustainability research.MethodsThis systematic review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Methods will follow Cochrane gold-standard review methodology. The search will be undertaken across multiple databases, adapting filters previously developed by the research team, data screening and extraction will be performed in duplicate, strategies will be coded using an adapted sustainability-explicit taxonomy, and evidence will be synthesised using appropriate methods (i.e. meta-analytic following Cochrane or non-meta-analytic following SWiM guidelines). We will include any randomised controlled study that targets any staff or volunteers delivering interventions in clinical or community settings. Studies which report on any objective or subjective measure of the sustainment of a health prevention policy, practice, or programme within any of the eligible settings will be included. Article screening, data extraction, risk of bias, and quality assessment will be performed independently by two review authors. Risk of bias will be assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). A random-effect meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the pooled effect of sustainment strategies separately by setting (i.e. clinical and community). Sub-group analyses will be undertaken to explore possible causes of statistical heterogeneity and may include the following: time period, single or multi-strategy, type of setting, and type of intervention. Differences between sub-groups will be statistically compared.Discussion/conclusionThis will be the first systematic review to determine the effect of strategies designed to support sustainment on sustaining the implementation of EBIs in clinical and community settings. The findings of this review will directly inform the design of future sustainability-focused implementation trials. Further, these findings will inform the development of a sustainability practice guide for public health practitioners.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022352333.

Using policy codesign to achieve multi-sector alignment in adolescent behavioral health: a study protocol

BackgroundPolicymaking is quickly gaining focus in the field of implementation science as a potential opportunity for aligning cross-sector systems and introducing incentives to promote population health, including substance use disorders (SUD) and their prevention in adolescents. Policymakers are seen as holding the necessary levers for realigning service infrastructure to more rapidly and effectively address adolescent behavioral health across the continuum of need (prevention through crisis care, mental health, and SUD) and in multiple locations (schools, primary care, community settings). The difficulty of aligning policy intent, policy design, and successful policy implementation is a well-known challenge in the broader public policy and public administration literature that also affects local behavioral health policymaking. This study will examine a blended approach of coproduction and codesign (i.e., Policy Codesign), iteratively developed over multiple years to address problems in policy formation that often lead to poor implementation outcomes. The current study evaluates this scalable approach using reproducible measures to grow the knowledge base in this field of study.MethodsThis is a single-arm, longitudinal, staggered implementation study to examine the acceptability and short-term impacts of Policy Codesign in resolving critical challenges in behavioral health policy formation. The aims are to (1) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and reach of Policy Codesign within two geographically distinct counties in Washington state, USA; (2) examine the impact of Policy Codesign on multisector policy development within these counties using social network analysis; and (3) assess the perceived replicability of Policy Codesign among leaders and other staff of policy-oriented state behavioral health intermediary organizations across the USA.DiscussionThis study will assess the feasibility of a specific approach to collaborative policy development, Policy Codesign, in two diverse regions. Results will inform a subsequent multi-state study measuring the impact and effectiveness of this approach for achieving multi-sector and evidence informed policy development in adolescent SUD prevention and treatment.

Advancing Implementation Practice: Supplemental Tools to Aid in Selection of Implementation Strategies and Outcomes for Healthcare Practitioners

AbstractThe field of implementation science has grown exponentially within healthcare and human service delivery settings. Scientists in the field have made tremendous strides in generating new knowledge aimed at increasing uptake of evidence into practice settings, including development of numerous theories, models, and frameworks to guide the process of implementation, strategies to operationalize optimal methods of implementing an evidence-based practice change, and designated outcomes to evaluate the progress of a change initiative. Despite these gains in scientific discovery surrounding implementation, routine use and application of this knowledge among healthcare practitioners seeking to implement a practice change in real world settings remains fragmented, risking development of a “secondary gap” between what we know from the science of implementation and what is actually done by frontline teams when implementing evidence-based practice changes. To address this gap, we developed two supplemental tools to bridge the language between implementation science and implementation practice: the Implementation Strategies Supplemental Tool (ISST), and the Implementation Outcomes Supplemental Tool (IOST). The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and intended use of these tools for healthcare practitioners seeking to use a science-informed approach when implementing an evidence-based practice change. We include a case example of how healthcare practitioners may apply these tools to improve implementation of evidence-based practices in real-world settings.

Drivers of success: improving implementation research tools for better health outcomes.

A thorough examination of context, and how it influences implementation of evidence-based interventions, is a promising strategy for enhancing child survival initiatives. Spreading approaches that are identified as drivers of successful reduction in under-five mortality from 'exemplar' countries could be pivotal in leading to reductions in other settings facing stagnant mortality rates, in particular for low- and middle-income countries with high disease burden and insufficient programmatic capacity to effectively implement evidence-based interventions at scale. Yet there remains a lack of robust analytic methods to accurately assess mortality and describe the drivers of interventions' implementation success at both national and subnational levels. The field of implementation science and its defining targets and tools is well positioned to address this knowledge gap by integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods into an adaptable evaluation framework that can be tailored to meet the specific needs across varying country contexts. These tools enhance the measurement of population health outcomes and provide crucial evidence on implementation barriers and facilitators that can inform policies that can be adjusted for diverse contexts. This commentary aims to emphasize the role of implementation research in understanding how exemplar countries achieved significant improvements in child survival and in identifying replicable lessons for other settings. Ultimately, all manuscripts underscore the relevance of implementation research in bolstering the reduction of under-five mortality.

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.

The ART of Readiness: A Practical Tool for Implementation Tailoring at the Activity Level

AbstractThe field of implementation science has made notable strides to enhance the practice of tailoring through the development of implementation strategy taxonomies (e.g., Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change; Waltz et al., In Implement Sci 10:109, 2015) and numerous tailoring methodologies (e.g., concept mapping, conjoint analysis, group model building, and intervention mapping; Powell et al., In J Behav Health Serv Res 44:177–194, 2017). However, there is growing concern about a widening gap between implementation science research and what is practical in real-world settings, given resource and time constraints (Beidas et al., In Implement Sci 17:55, 2022; Lewis et al., In Implement Sci 13:68, 2018). Overly complex implementation strategies and misalignment with practitioner priorities threaten progress in the field of implementation science. As solutions to the burgeoning threats, implementation science thought leaders have suggested using rapid approaches to contextual inquiry; developing practical approaches to implementation strategy design, selection, and tailoring; and embracing an embedded implementation science researcher model that prioritizes partner needs over researcher interests (Beidas et al., In Implement Sci 17:55, 2022). Aligned with these recommendations, we introduce the Activity Readiness Tool (ART)—a brief, practitioner-friendly survey that assesses discrete determinants of practice through an implementation readiness lens. We illustrate how the tool can be used as a rapid approach to facilitate implementation efforts in a case example involving a national integrated care initiative. The ART can serve as a quick, user-friendly companion to an array of existing evidence-based tailoring methods and tools.

State of the Science of Scale-Up of Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.

Cancer deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) will nearly double by 2040. Available evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for cancer prevention and early detection can reduce cancer-related mortality, yet there is a lack of evidence on effectively scaling these EBIs in LMIC settings. We conducted a scoping review to identify published literature from six databases between 2012 and 2022 that described efforts for scaling cancer prevention and early detection EBIs in LMICs. Included studies met one of two definitions of scale-up: (1) deliberate efforts to increase the impact of effective intervention to benefit more people or (2) an intervention shown to be efficacious on a small scale expanded under real-world conditions to reach a greater proportion of eligible population. Study characteristics, including EBIs, implementation strategies, and outcomes used, were summarized using frameworks from the field of implementation science. This search yielded 3,076 abstracts, with 24 studies eligible for inclusion. Included studies focused on a number of cancer sites including cervical (67%), breast (13%), breast and cervical (13%), liver (4%), and colon (4%). Commonly reported scale-up strategies included developing stakeholder inter-relationships, training and education, and changing infrastructure. Barriers to scale-up were reported at individual, health facility, and community levels. Few studies reported applying conceptual frameworks to guide strategy selection and evaluation. Although there were relatively few published reports, this scoping review offers insight into the approaches used by LMICs to scale up cancer EBIs, including common strategies and barriers. More importantly, it illustrates the urgent need to fill gaps in research to guide best practices for bringing the implementation of cancer EBIs to scale in LMICs.

Situating implementation science (IS) in res(IS)tance: a conceptual frame toward the integration of scholarship from the black radical tradition.

This manuscript undertakes a disciplinary self-critique of the field of implementation science, a field which attempts to bridge the gap between evidence-based interventions and their practical application. Despite the heightened emphasis on health equity and racial disparities, the field's current discourse is limited by key epistemic shortcomings. First, even though prevalence of implementation gaps between racialized groups in the United States necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the systems perpetuating these disparities, the field does not operate with a general explanation for disparities not as a failure of systems, but a system historically and structural designed to produce disparities. Second, the field has attempted to address disparities without adequate dialog with a broad tradition of anti-racist and anti-colonial sociology, history and epistemology, and therefore risks a decontextualized analysis of disparities and under-informed approaches to achieving equity. Fortunately, scholarship from the Black radical tradition (BRT), such as the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP), Critical Race Theory (CRT), and more broadly conceptual frameworks from post-modern, anti-colonial, Black feminist studies and social epistemology can offer to implementation science frameworks that center power dynamics and racialized oppression. This epistemic re-alignment of implementation research to "center at the margins" can enable the field of implementation science to more critically examine and dismantle systems that perpetuate racial inequalities in access to and utilization of health interventions. For example, normalization and dynamic fit, which are thought to be key mechanisms of implementation, are revealed in the light of this tradition of scholarship to be potentially problematic acquiescence to oppressive systems. Drawing from the concept of resistance anchored in the scholarship of the Black radical tradition as well as contemporary social epistemology such as the work of José Medina and Maria Fricker about epistemic justice, the authors further advance that implementation science could make more substantial contributions to the dismantling of racialized systems and actively work toward health justice through the transdisciplinary lens of resistance. This is a call to action for integrating implementation science with critical philosophical and theoretical perspectives rooted in Black studies and related insights, which have been acquired through the struggle for social justice, to inform the design of implementation strategies and research projects that improve health services and health outcomes for health disparity populations.

Towards More Appropriate Care for Low Back Pain: Understanding Primary Care Factors that Increase Best Practices and Collaborative Approaches to Care

Moving towards more appropriate care for low back pain is an important health services research issue in Ontario, Canada especially as evidence suggests there is overuse of health care resources for this problem. Low back pain involves excessive imaging, over-referrals for specialist care, and overuse of drug therapy. At the present time, there is also poor uptake of best practices, an evidence to practice gap, and low back pain management and outcomes have changed little over the past 35 years. 
 The emerging field of implementation science will be useful to address the central research question which asks “What factors amongst primary care physicians that manage low back pain, enable or constrain their ability to implement best practices in their care?“ Implementation science (IS) is drawn upon to help advance the uptake of research findings into practice and provide understanding as to why the implementation of evidence into practice may be successful or not. 
 Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) model helps to identify barriers and facilitators to the uptake of best practices. Older frameworks have focused narrowly on physician behavior change, but CFIR recognizes that implementation must also consider features of context and setting to have a greater chance of success. As such, CFIR informs the study by using a meta-analytic framework, and focuses on elements of intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, individual characteristics and process, which have been found to influence uptake of interventions. 
 The study uses a mixed methods approach which is appropriate when attempting to understand the social and practice environment involved in providing primary care. In this multi-phase study, a literature review was first conducted to provide a current understanding of what is currently known on the topic. This informed Phase 2, which involved sending quantitative surveys to a sample of Ontario primary care providers, mainly including family physicians. A final Phase 3 involved qualitative in-depth interviews with a subset of those providers to provide context and help explain patterns in the research findings.
 Results from 240 surveys will be presented, including a discussion of descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, hypothesis testing and a principal components analysis (PCA). Findings from 21 interviews will also be discussed, where 7 themes and multiple subthemes were found, with a particular emphasis on: the usage of evidence, inter-professional practice, changing practice patterns, expanding virtual care, and centering patient preferences. Overall, multiple barriers and facilitators for the adoption of best practices including the use of clinical practice guidelines will be discussed. 
 The research committee, engaged in the project co-design, is made up of an interdisciplinary team of health service researchers, clinicians and academics with diverse expertise and experience. The study aims to address gaps in the application of best practices for providers delivering low back pain care and recommends more integrated models of care. An overall goal is to help improve low back pain management at the primary care level, as this remains a prevalent and costly issue for the Canadian province of Ontario. 

Providing a scaffold for considering theoretical frameworks in evidence implementation projects: the JBI approach to evidence implementation.

There are many theories, models, and frameworks that have been proposed in the field of implementation science. Despite this, many evidence implementation or practice improvement projects do not consider these theories, models, or frameworks in their improvement efforts. The JBI approach is one example of an implementation theory, model, or framework. This approach has been developed particularly with health care professionals in mind and is designed to clearly guide pragmatic evidence implementation efforts based on the best available evidence. In this paper, we discuss how the JBI approach to evidence implementation can interact with and support theory-informed, pragmatic evidence implementation projects.

Revisiting the policy ecology framework for implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health settings

BackgroundOver the past three decades, policy actors and actions have been highly influential in supporting the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in mental health settings. An early examination of these actions resulted in the Policy Ecology Framework (PEF), which was originally developed as a tactical primer for state and local mental health regulators in the field of child mental health. However, the policy landscape for implementation has evolved significantly since the original PEF was published. An interrogation of the strategies originally proposed in the PEF is necessary to provide an updated menu of strategies to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of policy action and promote system improvement.ObjectivesThis paper builds upon the original PEF to address changes in the policy landscape for the implementation of mental health EBPs between 2009 and 2022. We review the current state of policy strategies that support the implementation of EBPs in mental health care and outline key areas for policy-oriented implementation research. Our review identifies policy strategies at federal, state, agency, and organizational levels, and highlights developments in the social context in which EBPs are implemented. Furthermore, our review is organized around some key changes that occurred across each PEF domain that span organizational, agency, political, and social contexts along with subdomains within each area.DiscussionWe present an updated menu of policy strategies to support the implementation of EBPs in mental health settings. This updated menu of strategies considers the broad range of conceptual developments and changes in the policy landscape. These developments have occurred across the organizational, agency, political, and social contexts and are important for policymakers to consider in the context of supporting the implementation of EBPs.SummaryThe updated PEF expands and enhances the specification of policy levers currently available, and identifies policy targets that are underdeveloped (e.g., de-implementation and sustainment) but are becoming visible opportunities for policy to support system improvement. The updated PEF clarifies current policy efforts within the field of implementation science in health to conceptualize and better operationalize the role of policy in the implementation of EBPs.

Enhancing Impact: A Call to Action for Equitable Implementation Science.

Despite investments in evidence-based interventions and Implementation Science, most evidence-based interventions are not widely or routinely adopted, delivered, or sustained in many real-world community and healthcare settings. This gap is even greater in settings and populations experiencing numerous social and structural barriers to health, with important implications for persistent patterns in health inequities. In this Viewpoint, as part of a Special Issue on Advancing the Adaptability of Chronic Disease Prevention and Management through Implementation Science, we outline seven calls to action for the field of Implementation Science, with the goal of encouraging researchers, practitioners, and funders to be more intentional and accountable in applying Implementation Science to have greater impact on promoting health equity. Calls to action include (1) enhance public health, community, and multi-sectoral partnerships to promote health equity and equitable implementation; (2) revisit and build the evidence base needed to promote health equity and impact at multiple levels; (3) prioritize focus on policy development, dissemination, and implementation; (4) be agile and responsive in application of Implementation Science frameworks, processes, and methods; (5) identify and redefine meaningful metrics for equity and impact; (6) disseminate scientific evidence and research to a diverse range of partners and potential beneficiaries; and (7) extend focus on de-implementation, mis-implementation, and sustainability which are central to enhancing health equity. Additionally, we outline why a focus on prevention and public health is essential to making progress towards health equity in Implementation Science, summarize important advancements that the field has made towards making equity more foundational, and pose important research questions to enhance equitable impact of work in this area.

Making the connection between health equity and sustainability.

Sustainability and health inequities are key challenges in public health and healthcare. Research suggests that only about half of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are sustained over time, and settings and populations experiencing systemic and structural barriers to health (e.g., poverty, racism, stigma, and discrimination) experience even greater challenges to sustainability. In this article, we argue that an enhanced focus on sustainability in the field of implementation science is critical in order to maximize the long-term health benefits and broader societal impacts of EBIs for all populations and settings. From an equity perspective, a focus on sustainability is particularly critical to prioritize among population sub-groups that have not historically received the benefits of health-related EBIs. We discuss how a health equity framing is essential to sustaining EBIs in under-resourced communities, and requires moving away from a deficit mindset that focuses on why EBIs are challenging to sustain, to one that focuses more on identifying and nurturing existing assets within individuals and communities to increase the likelihood that EBIs are sustained. We conclude with a discussion of future directions as well as recommendations and resources (e.g., frameworks, tools) to advance and make progress toward sustainability from a health equity mindset, including: (1) Actively planning early for sustainability alongside key partners; (2) Tracking progress toward enhancing sustainability and being accountable in doing so equitably for all settings and populations; and (3) Focusing on both equity and engagement early and often throughout the research process and all implementation phases.

Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science

BackgroundPolicy is receiving increasing attention in the field of implementation science. However, there remains a lack of clear, concise guidance about how policy can be conceptualized in implementation science research. Building on Curran’s article “Implementation science made too simple”—which defines “the thing” as the intervention, practice, or innovation in need of implementation support—we offer a typology of four very basic ways to conceptualize policy in implementation science research. We provide examples of studies that have conceptualized policy in these different ways and connect aspects of the typology to established frameworks in the field. The typology simplifies and refines related typologies in the field.Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science research.1) Policy as something to adopt: an evidence-supported policy proposal is conceptualized as “the thing” and the goal of research is to understand how policymaking processes can be modified to increase adoption, and thus reach, of the evidence-supported policy. Policy-focused dissemination research is well-suited to achieve this goal.2) Policy as something to implement: a policy, evidence-supported or not, is conceptualized as “the thing” and the goal of research is to generate knowledge about how policy rollout (or policy de-implementation) can be optimized to maximize benefits for population health and health equity. Policy-focused implementation research is well-suited to achieve this goal.3) Policy as context to understand: an evidence-supported intervention is “the thing” and policies are conceptualized as a fixed determinant of implementation outcomes. The goal of research is to understand the mechanisms through which policies affect implementation of the evidence-supported intervention.4) Policy as strategy to use: an evidence-supported intervention is “the thing” and policy is conceptualized as a strategy to affect implementation outcomes. The goal of research is to understand, and ideally test, how policy strategies affect implementation outcomes related to the evidence-supported intervention.ConclusionPolicy can be conceptualized in multiple, non-mutually exclusive ways in implementation science. Clear conceptualizations of these distinctions are important to advancing the field of policy-focused implementation science and promoting the integration of policy into the field more broadly.

Growing Field of Implementation Science Is Trying to Address the Slow Uptake of Effective Healthcare

Growing Field of Implementation Science Is Trying to Address the Slow Uptake of Effective Healthcare

Advancing the science of policy implementation: a call to action for the implementation science field.

Public policies have been essential in addressing many of the most pressing public health problems in the USA and around the world. A large and convincing body of multidisciplinary research has established the impacts or effectiveness of public policies, such as smoke-free air laws and nutrition standards, on improving health outcomes and behaviors. Most of this research assumes that because an evidence-based policy is adopted or takes effect, it is implemented as intended. This assumption, however, is often incorrect. Like with clinical guidelines and other interventions, implementation science has an important role to play in promoting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based public policies that promote public health. To realize this potential, there remains a critical need to first establish a common understanding of what public policy is, the role of specific policies in the context of implementation (i.e., is it the evidence-based intervention or the implementation strategy?), and to establish an appropriate methodological foundation for the field of policy implementation science. We recommend that the field must evolve to (i) include policy experts and actors on policy implementation science study teams; (ii) identify theories, models, and frameworks that are suitable for policy implementation science; (iii) identify policy implementation strategies; (iv) adapt and/or identify study designs best suited for policy implementation science research; and (v) identify appropriate policy implementation outcome measures.

The role of organizational capacity in intervention efficacy in a church-based cancer education program: A configurational analysis.

It is well-established in the field of implementation science that the context in which an intervention is delivered can play a crucial role in how well it is implemented. However, less is known about how organizational context or capacity relates to efficacy outcomes, particularly with health promotion interventions delivered outside of healthcare settings. The present study examined whether organizational capacity indicators were linked to key efficacy outcomes in an evidence-based cancer control intervention delivered in 13 African American churches in Maryland. Outcomes included increases in colorectal cancer knowledge and self-report colonoscopy screening behavior from baseline to follow-up. We used Coincidence Analysis to identify features of organizational capacity that uniquely distinguished churches with varying levels of cancer knowledge and screening. Indicators of organizational capacity (e.g., congregation size, prior health promotion experience) were from an existing measure of church organizational capacity for health promotion. A single solution pathway accounted for greater increases in colorectal cancer knowledge over 12 months, a combination of two conditions: conducting 3 or more health promotion activities in the prior 2 years together with not receiving any technical assistance from outside partners in the prior 2 years. A single condition accounted for greater increases in colonoscopy screening over 24 months: churches that had conducted health promotion activities in 1-4 different topical areas in the prior 2 years. Findings highlight aspects of organizational capacity (e.g., prior experience in health promotion) that may facilitate intervention efficacy and can help practitioners identify organizational settings most promising for intervention impact.

The Black women first initiative: using implementation science to examine bundled interventions to improve care and treatment coordination for Black women with HIV

BackgroundBlack cisgender and transgender women are disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic compared to women of other racial and ethnic identities. Twelve demonstration sites across the United States are adapting, implementing and evaluating a comprehensive bundle of two or more evidence informed interventions to improve health and outcomes and quality of life for Black women with HIV.MethodsGuided by Greenhalgh’s Conceptual Model of Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organizations and Proctor’s model for use of implementation strategies and evaluating implementation, service and client outcomes, this mixed methods study documents outcomes at the client, organization, and system level. Participant eligibility for the bundled interventions includes: individuals who are 18 years or older, identify as Black or African-American, identify as cisgender or transgender female and have a diagnosis of HIV. Qualitative data are collected systematically through a series of annual site visits and a standardized monthly call form to assess the barriers and facilitators to the implementation process and the key determinants impacting the intervention uptake and implementation strategies. Quantitative data collection for the implementation, service and client outcomes is conducted through a pre-post prospective study to examine the impact on Black women’s health and well-being. Implementation outcomes include: the reach to Black women with HIV, adoption of interventions across the sites and their community; the fidelity to the components of the bundled interventions; the costs of the intervention; and the sustainability of the intervention in the organization and community. Primary service and client outcomes are improved linkage to and retention in HIV care and treatment, increased and sustained viral suppression, improved quality of life and resilience, and stigma reduction.DiscussionThe study protocol presented is specifically designed to advance the evidence for adopting culturally responsive and relevant care into clinic and public health settings to improve the health and well-being for Black women with HIV. In addition the study may advance the implementation science field by furthering what is known about the ways in which bundled interventions can address barriers to care and facilitate the uptake of organizational practices to improve health.

Implementation of an online pain science education for chronic musculoskeletal pain in Brazilian public health system: protocol for a hybrid type III randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation

BackgroundAlthough clinical practice guidelines recommend pain education as the first-line option for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain, there is a lack of pain education programmes in healthcare. Thus, digital health programmes can be an effective tool for implementing pain education strategies for public health. This trial will aim to analyse the implementation and effectiveness outcomes of three online pain science education strategies in the Brazilian public health system (SUS) for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain.MethodsWe will conduct a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. We will include adult individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain, recruited from primary healthcare in the city of Guarapuava, Brazil. Individuals will be randomised to three implementation groups receiving a pain science education intervention (EducaDor) but delivered in different modalities: group 1) synchronous online; group 2) asynchronous videos; and group 3) interactive e-book only. Implementation outcomes will include acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, fidelity, penetration, sustainability, and costs. We will also assess effectiveness outcomes, such as pain, function, quality of life, sleep, self-efficacy, and adverse effects. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be conducted from the SUS and societal perspectives. The evaluations will be done at baseline, post-intervention (10 weeks), and 6 months.DiscussionThis study will develop and implement a collaborative intervention model involving primary healthcare professionals, secondary-level healthcare providers, and patients to enhance self-management of chronic pain. In addition to promoting better pain management, this study will also contribute to the field of implementation science in public health by generating important insights and recommendations for future interventions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05302180; 03/29/2022).

The use of implementation science to close the research-to-treatment gap for cognitive impairment in psychosis.

For people living with psychosis, cognitive impairment is common and can have significant impacts for functional recovery, impacting engagement with treatment and quality of life more broadly. There is now strong evidence for the effectiveness of cognition-focused treatments, such as cognitive remediation to improve clinical and functional outcomes for people with psychosis. However, engagement with treatment has been a long-standing issue in mental health care, including for people with psychosis, who often experience difficulties with motivation. While research on clinical effectiveness of cognition-focused treatment is growing, to date there has been little research focused on the implementation of such treatments and it is not clear how best to support uptake and engagement across diverse mental health settings. Implementation science is the study of methods and strategies to promote the adoption, application, and maintenance of evidence-based practices in routine care. To integrate cognition-focused treatments into routine practice, and improve engagement with treatment and the quality and effectiveness of care for people with psychosis, researchers need to embrace implementation science and research. This paper provides a succinct overview of the field of implementation science, current evidence for implementation of cognition-focused treatments for psychosis and practical guidance for using implementation science in clinical research. The future of psychosis research includes multidisciplinary teams of clinical researchers and implementation scientists, working together with providers and consumers to build the evidence that can improve the implementation of cognition-focused treatments.