Adaptation in Dissemination and Implementation Science

Author(s):  
Ana A. Baumann ◽  
Leopoldo J. Cabassa ◽  
Shannon Wiltsey Stirman

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.

Author(s):  
Enola Proctor

Implementation research 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 ultimate aim of implementation research 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 move those interventions into specific settings, extending their availability, reach, and benefits to clients and communities. This entry provides an overview of implementation research as a component of research translation and defines key terms, including implementation outcomes and implementation strategies, as well as an overview of guiding theories and models and methodological issues including variable measurement, research design, and stakeholder engagement.


Author(s):  
Cara C. Lewis ◽  
Enola K. Proctor ◽  
Ross C. Brownson

The National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the CDC, and a number of private foundations have expressed the need for advancing the science of dissemination and implementation. Interest in dissemination and implementation research is present in many countries. Improving health care requires not only effective programs and interventions, but also effective strategies to move them into community based settings of care. But before discrete strategies can be tested for effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, or cost effectiveness, context and outcome constructs must be identified and defined in such a way that enables their manipulation and measurement. Measurement is underdeveloped, with few psychometrically strong measures and very little attention paid to their pragmatic nature. A variety of tools are needed to capture health care access and quality, and no measurement issues are more pressing than those for dissemination and implementation science.


Author(s):  
Bridget Gaglio ◽  
Russell E. Glasgow

Considerable progress has been made in evaluation of dissemination and implementation science and research; however, we are still lacking knowledge in several key areas. The complex, inherently multilevel and contextual nature of dissemination and implementation science, and the always (sometimes rapidly) changing environment, present ongoing challenges. Given these challenges, evaluation of dissemination and implementation efforts need more adapted, novel, refined and sophisticated approaches to evaluation and especially, more pragmatic measures. To advance our present state of science, the question that we need to ask (and be able to answer) is “What are the characteristics of interventions that can reach large numbers of people, especially those who can most benefit, be adopted broadly by different settings, be consistently implemented by different staff members with moderate levels of training and expertise, and produce replicable and long-lasting effects (and minimal negative impact) at a reasonable cost?”


Author(s):  
Borsika A. Rabin ◽  
Ross C. Brownson

In order for a field to prosper and thrive, a common language is essential. As is often the case when many disciplines and numerous organizations converge in development of a field, dissemination and implementation research is still characterized by inconsistent terminology. While the “state-of-the-art” might still not be advanced enough to resolve all of the existing inconsistencies in terminology, this chapter represents the tremendous amount of development that happened over the past 5 years to create platforms and approaches for a more consistent, agreed upon language for dissemination and implementation research across topic areas, stakeholder groups, and geographical areas. As the dissemination and implementation field makes progress toward a shared terminology, we can expect to see higher quality dissemination and implementation research and greater contribution of dissemination and implementation science to improving public health and clinical practice.


Author(s):  
Ross C. Brownson ◽  
Graham A. Colditz ◽  
Enola K. Proctor

This chapter highlights just a sample of the many rich areas for dissemination and implementation research that will assist us in shortening the gap between discovery and practice, thus beginning to realize the benefits of research for patients, families, and communities. Greater emphasis on implementation in challenging settings, including lower and middle-income countries and underresourced communities in higher income countries will add to the lessons we must learn to fully reap the benefit of our advances in dissemination and implementation research methods. Moreover, collaboration and multidisciplinary approaches to dissemination and implementation research will help to make efforts more consistent and more effective moving forward. Thus, we will be better able to identify knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in future dissemination and implementation research, ultimately informing the practice and policies of clinical care and public health services.


Author(s):  
Ramesh Raghavan

This chapter presents an overview of how D&I research can be evaluated from an economic point of view. Dissemination and implementation imposes costs upon knowledge purveyors, provider organizations, public health organizations, and payers (including governments). However, whether these added costs will result in improved service delivery and, perhaps more importantly, client outcomes and improvements in population health remain as open questions. If emerging studies reveal that defined implementation strategies are more cost effective than “usual” implementation, then policymakers and service providers will need to resource these added costs of implementation in order to assure the success and sustainability of high-quality health services over the long term.


Author(s):  
James W. Dearing

The main concepts of the diffusion of innovations represent a hybrid change research and practice paradigm that blends ideas that can now be found in life cycle, evolutionary, and teleological theories of social change. This chapter discusses why the paradigm developed in the ways that it did, including the shortcomings of this approach, especially for studying the role of organizations in change processes. The chapter also examines the rapid rise of dissemination and implementation science as conducted by health services and public health researchers and how those new literatures are related to diffusion. This paradigmatic evolution from descriptive and explanatory studies to intervention research utilizing diffusion concepts is a theme of this chapter, with emphases on organizational implementation of innovations, inter-organizational diffusion, external validity of innovations and how a recognition of the agency of adopters can reshape diffusion study.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 263348952110494
Author(s):  
Rachel C. Shelton ◽  
Prajakta Adsul ◽  
April Oh ◽  
Nathalie Moise ◽  
Derek M. Griffith

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document