scholarly journals Using Implementation Science Strategy Mapping on the Age-Friendly Health System's 4Ms Journey

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 365-365
Author(s):  
Mary Dolansky ◽  
Anne Pohnert ◽  
Sherry Greenberg
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Mapping Method ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Systematic Process ◽  
Implementing Change ◽  
Implementation Outcomes ◽  
Adoption And Implementation ◽  
And Performance

Abstract Background Implementation science is the study of methods to promote the adoption and integration of evidence-based practices into routine health care to improve the quality of care. The purpose of this study was to use Implementation Mapping to guide the implementation of The John A. Hartford evidence-based Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS) 4Ms Framework: What Matters, Medications, Mentation, and Mobility. Methods Implementation Mapping, a systematic process for planning implementation strategies, guided the 9-month integration of the 4Ms Framework in the 1,100 MinuteClinics across the US. Implementation Mapping includes five tasks: (1) conduct an implementation needs assessment and identify program adopters and implementers; (2) state adoption and implementation outcomes and performance objectives, identify determinants, and create matrices of change objectives; (3) choose theoretical methods (mechanisms of change) and select or design implementation strategies; (4) produce implementation protocols and materials; and (5) evaluate implementation outcomes. Results The implementation plan, developed by the implementation mapping method, was carried out over 9-months. Seven implementation strategies were identified from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project including the provision of education, electronic health record integration, internal champion facilitation, cues to action, and a dashboard to monitor progress. To date, the implementation mapping has resulted in the adoption of the 4Ms by 1145 providers (37%). Monitoring of the adoption of the 4Ms Framework and consideration of future implementation strategies is ongoing. Conclusions Implementation Mapping provided a systematic process to develop strategies to improve the adoption, implementation, sustainment, and scale-up of the evidence-based 4Ms Framework.

scholarly journals Strengthening methods for tracking adaptations and modifications to implementation strategies

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber D. Haley ◽  
Byron J. Powell ◽  
Callie Walsh-Bailey ◽  
Molly Krancari ◽  
Inga Gruß ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Implementation Strategy ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Implementing Change ◽  
Reporting Framework ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Seeking Help

Abstract Background Developing effective implementation strategies requires adequate tracking and reporting on their application. Guidelines exist for defining and reporting on implementation strategy characteristics, but not for describing how strategies are adapted and modified in practice. We built on existing implementation science methods to provide novel methods for tracking strategy modifications. Methods These methods were developed within a stepped-wedge trial of an implementation strategy package designed to help community clinics adopt social determinants of health-related activities: in brief, an ‘Implementation Support Team’ supports clinics through a multi-step process. These methods involve five components: 1) describe planned strategy; 2) track its use; 3) monitor barriers; 4) describe modifications; and 5) identify / describe new strategies. We used the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy to categorize strategies, Proctor et al.’s reporting framework to describe them, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to code barriers / contextual factors necessitating modifications, and elements of the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced to describe strategy modifications. Results We present three examples of the use of these methods: 1) modifications made to a facilitation-focused strategy (clinics reported that certain meetings were too frequent, so their frequency was reduced in subsequent wedges); 2) a clinic-level strategy addition which involved connecting one study clinic seeking help with community health worker-related workflows to another that already had such a workflow in place; 3) a study-level strategy addition which involved providing assistance in overcoming previously encountered (rather than de novo) challenges. Conclusions These methods for tracking modifications made to implementation strategies build on existing methods, frameworks, and guidelines; however, as none of these were a perfect fit, we made additions to several frameworks as indicated, and used certain frameworks’ components selectively. While these methods are time-intensive, and more work is needed to streamline them, they are among the first such methods presented to implementation science. As such, they may be used in research on assessing effective strategy modifications and for replication and scale-up of effective strategies. We present these methods to guide others seeking to document implementation strategies and modifications to their studies. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03607617 (first posted 31/07/2018).

Adaptation in Dissemination and Implementation Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana A. Baumann ◽  
Leopoldo J. Cabassa ◽  
Shannon Wiltsey Stirman
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Implementation Outcomes ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Science ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research

This chapter focuses on adaptations in the context of dissemination and implementation research and practice. Consistent with the existing literature, the authors recommend that adaptations be proactively and iteratively determined, strongly informed by a variety of stakeholders, and that efforts be made to carefully describe and document the nature of the adaptations and evaluate their impact on desired service, health, and implementation outcomes. While this chapter focuses on adaptations to interventions and the context of practice, the authors also note that adaptations may need to be made to implementation strategies. Following the call by Proctor and colleagues for further precision in defining and operationalizing implementation strategies, and based on evidence that scholars are not necessarily reporting what and how they are adapting the interventions, scholars are urged to define and evaluate the adaptations they are making not only to the interventions and context of practice but also to the implementation strategies.

Implementation Strategies

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
JoAnn E. Kirchner ◽  
Thomas J. Waltz ◽  
Byron J. Powell ◽  
Jeffrey L. Smith ◽  
Enola K. Proctor
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Efficient Manner

As the field of implementation science moves beyond studying barriers to and facilitators of implementation to the comparative effectiveness of different strategies, it is essential that we create a common taxonomy to define the strategies that we study. Similarly, we must clearly document the implementation strategies that are applied, the factors that influence their selection, and any adaptation of the strategy during the course of implementation and sustainment of the innovation being implemented. By incorporating this type of rigor into our work we will be able to not only advance the science of implementation but also our ability to place evidence-based innovations into the hands of practitioners in a timely and efficient manner.

scholarly journals Strategies to Integrate Genomic Medicine into Clinical Care: Evidence from the IGNITE Network

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 647
Author(s):  
Nina R. Sperber ◽  
Olivia M. Dong ◽  
Megan C. Roberts ◽  
Paul Dexter ◽  
Amanda R. Elsey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Program Implementation ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Genomic Medicine ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Implementing Change ◽  
Implementation Outcomes ◽  
Planning Framework

The complexity of genomic medicine can be streamlined by implementing some form of clinical decision support (CDS) to guide clinicians in how to use and interpret personalized data; however, it is not yet clear which strategies are best suited for this purpose. In this study, we used implementation science to identify common strategies for applying provider-based CDS interventions across six genomic medicine clinical research projects funded by an NIH consortium. Each project’s strategies were elicited via a structured survey derived from a typology of implementation strategies, the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), and follow-up interviews guided by both implementation strategy reporting criteria and a planning framework, RE-AIM, to obtain more detail about implementation strategies and desired outcomes. We found that, on average, the three pharmacogenomics implementation projects used more strategies than the disease-focused projects. Overall, projects had four implementation strategies in common; however, operationalization of each differed in accordance with each study’s implementation outcomes. These four common strategies may be important for precision medicine program implementation, and pharmacogenomics may require more integration into clinical care. Understanding how and why these strategies were successfully employed could be useful for others implementing genomic or precision medicine programs in different contexts.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Implementation Process of the Mobile Health Platform ‘WelTel’ in Six Sites in East Africa and Canada Using the Modified Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (mCFIR)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samia El Joueidi ◽  
Kevin Bardosh ◽  
Richard Musoke ◽  
Binyam Tilahun ◽  
Maryam Abo Moslim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Research ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Implementation Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
User Friendliness ◽  
Domain 3 ◽  
And Performance

Abstract Background: Health systems globally are investing in integrating secure messaging platforms for virtual care in clinical practice. Implementation science is essential for adoption, scale-up, spread and maintenance of complex evidence-based solutions in clinics with evolving priorities. In response, the mHealth Research Group modified the existing Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (mCFIR) to evaluate implementation of virtual health tools in clinical settings. WelTel® is an evidence-based digital health platform widely deployed in various geographical and health contexts. Objectives: To identify the facilitators and barriers for implementing WelTel and to assess the application of the mCFIR tool in facilitating focus groups in different geographical and health settings. Methodology: Both qualitative and semi-quantitative approaches were employed. Six mCFIR sessions were held in three countries with 51 key stakeholders surveyed. The mCFIR tool consists of 5 Domains and 25 Constructs and was built and distributed through Qualtrics XM. “Performance ” and “Importance” scores were valued on a scale of 0 to 10 (Mean + SD). Descriptive analysis was conducted using R computing software. NVivo 12 Pro software was used to analyze mCFIR responses and to generate themes from the participants’ input. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the focus group facilitators to understand their experience using the mCFIR tool. Results: We observed a parallel trend in the scores for Importance and Performance. Of the five Domains, Domain 4 (End-user Characteristics) and Domain 3 (Inner Settings) scored highest in Importance (8.9 + 0.5 and 8.6 + 0.6, respectively) and Performance (7.6 + 0.7 and 7.2 + 1.3, respectively) for all sites. Domain 2 (Outer Setting) scored the lowest in both Importance and Performance for all sites (7.6 + 0.4 and 5.6 + 1.8). Areas of strengths included timely diagnosis, immediate response, cost-effectiveness, user-friendliness, and simplicity. Areas for improvement included training, phone accessibility, health authority’s engagement, and literacy. Conclusion: The mCFIR tool allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation, reach, and scale-up of digital health tools. Participants emphasized the importance of creating partnerships with external organizations and health authorities in order to achieve sustainability and scalability.Trial Registration: NCT02603536 – November 11, 2015NCT01549457 – March 9, 2012

scholarly journals Application of an antiracism lens in the field of implementation science (IS): Recommendations for reframing implementation research with a focus on justice and racial equity

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 263348952110494
Author(s):  
Rachel C. Shelton ◽  
Prajakta Adsul ◽  
April Oh ◽  
Nathalie Moise ◽  
Derek M. Griffith
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Health Inequities ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Racial Equity ◽  
Structural Racism ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Evaluation Approaches

Background Despite the promise of implementation science (IS) to reduce health inequities, critical gaps and opportunities remain in the field to promote health equity. Prioritizing racial equity and antiracism approaches is critical in these efforts, so that IS does not inadvertently exacerbate disparities based on the selection of frameworks, methods, interventions, and strategies that do not reflect consideration of structural racism and its impacts. Methods Grounded in extant research on structural racism and antiracism, we discuss the importance of advancing understanding of how structural racism as a system shapes racial health inequities and inequitable implementation of evidence-based interventions among racially and ethnically diverse communities. We outline recommendations for explicitly applying an antiracism lens to address structural racism and its manifests through IS. An anti-racism lens provides a framework to guide efforts to confront, address, and eradicate racism and racial privilege by helping people identify racism as a root cause of health inequities and critically examine how it is embedded in policies, structures, and systems that differentially affect racially and ethnically diverse populations. Results We provide guidance for the application of an antiracism lens in the field of IS, focusing on select core elements in implementation research, including: (1) stakeholder engagement; (2) conceptual frameworks and models; (3) development, selection, adaptation of EBIs; (4) evaluation approaches; and (5) implementation strategies. We highlight the need for foundational grounding in antiracism frameworks among implementation scientists to facilitate ongoing self-reflection, accountability, and attention to racial equity, and provide questions to guide such reflection and consideration. Conclusion We conclude with a reflection on how this is a critical time for IS to prioritize focus on justice, racial equity, and real-world equitable impact. Moving IS towards making consideration of health equity and an antiracism lens foundational is central to strengthening the field and enhancing its impact. Plain language abstract There are important gaps and opportunities that exist in promoting health equity through implementation science. Historically, the commonly used frameworks, measures, interventions, strategies, and approaches in the field have not been explicitly focused on equity, nor do they consider the role of structural racism in shaping health and inequitable delivery of evidence-based practices/programs. This work seeks to build off of the long history of research on structural racism and health, and seeks to provide guidance on how to apply an antiracism lens to select core elements of implementation research. We highlight important opportunities for the field to reflect and consider applying an antiracism approach in: 1) stakeholder/community engagement; 2) use of conceptual frameworks; 3) development, selection and adaptation of evidence-based interventions; 4) evaluation approaches; 5) implementation strategies (e.g., how to deliver evidence-based practices, programs, policies); and 6) how researchers conduct their research, with a focus on racial equity. This is an important time for the field of implementation science to prioritize a foundational focus on justice, equity, and real-world impact through the application of an anti-racism lens in their work.

scholarly journals Implementation Science in Pediatric Psychology: The Example of Type 1 Diabetes

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 1068-1073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Price ◽  
Rinad S Beidas ◽  
Courtney Benjamin Wolk ◽  
Kimberly Genuario ◽  
Anne E Kazak
Keyword(s):  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Pediatric Psychology ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Children And Families ◽  
Integration Of Care

Abstract Objective Evidence-based screening, assessment, and intervention practices for youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are underutilized. Implementation science (IS) offers theoretical models and frameworks to guide rigorous mixed methods research to advance comprehensive care for children and families. Methods We conducted a targeted review of applications of IS to T1D. Results Pediatric T1D research offers initial, but still limited studies on implementation of evidence-based psychosocial care. IS designates approaches to understanding multi-level factors that influence implementation, ways to alter these factors, and methods to evaluate strategies to improve implementation. Conclusions IS is promising for advancing the translation of pediatric psychology approaches into clinical care. Following the science of implementation, further documentation of the reach of evidence-based care and establishing practice guidelines are important initial steps. Examining the barriers and facilitators of evidence-based psychosocial care can guide the development of testable implementation strategies to improve integration of care. Successful strategies can be evaluated through multi-site controlled implementation trials to explore their effectiveness. These lines of inquiry can be considered within pediatric populations, but may also be used to examine similarities and differences in effectiveness of implementation strategies across populations and settings. Such research has the potential to improve the health and well-being of children and families.

Implementation Strategies

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byron J. Powell ◽  
Krystal G. Garcia ◽  
Maria E. Fernandez
Keyword(s):  
Scale Up ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
The State ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Implementation Barriers ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Effective Strategies

Implementation strategies are methods or techniques that can be used to enhance the adoption, implementation, scale-up, and sustainment of evidence-based cancer control practices into routine care. This chapter defines implementation strategies, presents several taxonomies of implementation strategies that can be used to address multilevel implementation barriers, describes guidelines for reporting and specifying implementation strategies to ensure the efficient generation of knowledge and the replication of effective strategies in research and practice, briefly overviews the state of evidence for strategies, and suggests ways in which they can be carefully developed and applied to address the needs of specific contexts. The chapter concludes by presenting several research priorities related to implementation strategies.

Implementation Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enola Proctor ◽  
Alicia Bunger
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Work Practice ◽  
Social Work Practice ◽  
Research Translation ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Implementation Studies ◽  
Specific Implementation ◽  
Key Terms

Implementation science seeks to inform how to deliver evidence-based interventions, programs, and policies in real-world settings so their benefits can be realized and sustained. The aim of implementation science is building a base of evidence about the most effective processes and strategies for improving service delivery. Implementation research builds upon effectiveness research and then seeks to discover how to use specific implementation strategies and to move interventions into specific settings, extending their availability, reach, and benefits to clients and communities. This article provides an overview of implementation science as a component of research translation with an emphasis on traditional social work practice settings. The article begins by defining key terms, including implementation and evidence-based interventions. To inform conceptualization of implementation studies, the article continues with an overview of guiding implementation theories, models, and frameworks that explain the role of the multi-level practice context for implementation. Next, the article defines implementation strategies, identifies sources of implementation strategies, and provides recommendations for specifying and describing strategies that allow for replication. The article then describes methodological issues, including variable measurement, research design, and stakeholder engagement. Given the importance of designing implementation studies that optimize both internal and external validity, there is special attention to creative alternatives to traditional randomized controlled trials, and the potential for participatory and systems approaches. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of future directions for implementation science in social work.

scholarly journals Identifying barriers, facilitators, and implementation strategies for a faith-based physical activity program

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Haughton ◽  
Michelle L. Takemoto ◽  
Jennifer Schneider ◽  
Steven P. Hooker ◽  
Borsika Rabin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Physical Activity Program ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Church Staff ◽  
Faith Based ◽  
Activity Program

Abstract Background: Community engagement is critical to the acceleration of evidence-based interventions into community settings. Harnessing the knowledge and opinions of community leaders increases the likelihood of successful implementation, scale up, and sustainment of evidence-based interventions. Faith in Action (Fe en Acción) is an evidence-based promotora-led physical activity program designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity among churchgoing Latina women.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews using a semi-structured interview guide based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) at various Catholic and Protestant churches with large Latino membership in San Diego County, California to explore barriers and facilitators to implementation of Faith in Action and identify promising implementation strategies for program scale-up and dissemination. We interviewed 22 pastors and church staff and analyzed transcripts using an iterative-deductive team approach. Results: Pastors and church staff described barriers and facilitators to implementation within three domains of CFIR: characteristics of individuals (lack of self-efficacy for and knowledge of physical activity; influence on churchgoers’ behaviors), inner setting (church culture and norms, alignment with mission and values, competing priorities, lack of resources), and outer setting (need for buy-in from senior leadership). From the interviews, we identified four promising implementation strategies for the scale-up of faith-based health promotion programs: 1) health behavior change training for pastors and staff; 2) tailored messaging; 3) developing community collaborations; and 4) gaining denominational support.Conclusions: While churches can serve as valuable partners in health promotion, specific barriers and facilitators to implementation must be recognized and understood. Addressing these barriers through targeted implementation strategies at the adopter and organizational level can facilitate improved program implementation and lead the way for scale-up and dissemination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document