scholarly journals Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications: a refreshed description of the journals’ scope and expectations

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Wensing ◽  
Anne Sales ◽  
Paul Wilson ◽  
Rebecca Armstrong ◽  
Roman Kislov ◽  
...  

AbstractThis editorial provides a comprehensive consolidated overview of the scope and expectations of Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications. We remain most interested in rigorous empirical studies of the implementation of evidence-based healthcare practices (including interventions, technologies, and policies) and the de-implementation of practices that are demonstrated to be of low or no benefit. Implementation strategies (e.g., continuing professional education, organizational changes, and financial incentives to enhance the uptake of evidence-based practices) are of central interest to the journals. We see the field as large and complex, with a wide literature that is published in many venues. We urge people for whom it is new to spend some time reading the existing literature, and learning the scope of the work that has already been done, and published, in our journals and in an increasing number of other journals in the field.

Author(s):  
JoAnn E. Kirchner ◽  
Thomas J. Waltz ◽  
Byron J. Powell ◽  
Jeffrey L. Smith ◽  
Enola K. Proctor

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.


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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily R Haines ◽  
Alex Dopp ◽  
Aaron R. Lyon ◽  
Holly O. Witteman ◽  
Miriam Bender ◽  
...  

Abstract Background. Attempting to implement evidence-based practices in contexts for which they are not well-suited may compromise their fidelity and effectiveness or burden users (e.g., patients, providers, healthcare organizations) with elaborate strategies intended to force implementation. To improve the fit between evidence-based practices and contexts, implementation science experts have called for methods for adapting evidence-based practices and contexts, and tailoring implementation strategies; yet, methods for considering the dynamic interplay among evidence-based practices, contexts, and implementation strategies remain lacking. We argue that harmonizing the three can be accomplished with User-Centered Design, an iterative and highly stakeholder-engaged set of principles and methods. Methods. This paper presents a case example in which we used User-Centered Design methods and a three-phase User-Centered Design process to design a care coordination intervention for young adults with cancer. Specifically, we used usability testing to redesign an existing evidence-based practice (i.e., patient-reported outcome measure that served as the basis for intervention) to optimize usability and usefulness, an ethnographic user and contextual inquiry to prepare the context (i.e., comprehensive cancer center) to promote receptivity to implementation, and iterative prototyping workshops with a multidisciplinary design team to design the care coordination intervention and anticipate implementation strategies needed to enhance contextual fit. Results. Our User-Centered Design process resulted in the Young Adult Needs Assessment and Service Bridge (NA-SB), including a patient-reported outcome measure redesigned to promote usability and usefulness and a protocol for its implementation. By ensuring NA-SB directly responded to features of users and context, we designed NA-SB for implementation , potentially minimizing the strategies needed to address misalignment that may have otherwise existed. Furthermore, we designed NA-SB for scale-up ; by engaging users from other cancer programs across the country to identify points of contextual variation which would require flexibility in delivery, we created a tool not overly tailored to one unique context. Conclusions. User-Centered Design can help maximize usability and usefulness when designing evidence-based practices, preparing contexts, and informing implementation strategies- in effect, harmonizing evidence-based practices, contexts, and implementation strategies to promote implementation and effectiveness.


2013 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel L. Odom ◽  
Ann W. Cox ◽  
Matthew E. Brock

The increased prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has intensified the need for high-quality special education services designed for children and youth with ASD and their families. Implementation science provides guidance for moving innovation, such as utilizing evidence-based practices for students with ASD, into regular practice in schools. The National Professional Development Center on ASD (NPDC) incorporated the principles of implementation science, the scientific knowledge about evidence-based practices, and the measurement of program quality into an intervention approach for students with ASD. This article presents the NPDC model as an example of using implementation science to build systems of professional development that increase the quality of services and promote teachers’ use of evidence-based practices.


2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 1068-1073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Price ◽  
Rinad S Beidas ◽  
Courtney Benjamin Wolk ◽  
Kimberly Genuario ◽  
Anne E Kazak

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 082957352097491
Author(s):  
Ryan L. Farmer ◽  
Imad Zaheer ◽  
Gary J. Duhon ◽  
Stephanie Ghazal

Through innovation in research and self-correction, it is inevitable that some practices will be replaced or be discredited for one reason or another. De-implementation of discredited and low-value practices is a necessary step for school psychologists’ maintenance of evidence-based practices and to reduce unnecessary costs and risk. However, efforts to clarify de-implementation frameworks and strategies are ongoing. The scope of this paper follows McKay et al. in considering the potential for de-implementation strategies to be informed by applied behavior analysis and operant learning theory. We conceptualize low-value practice as sets of behaviors evoked by their context and maintained by their consequences, and thus de-implementation as behavior reduction. We discuss the need for future research given this perspective.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faye S. Taxman

The evidence-based practices literature has defined a core set of practices and treatments that are effective, at least in empirical studies. Implementing these evidence-based practices and treatments requires a different set of empirical studies to understand the operational issues that affects client-driven outcomes. In this article, we review the following three areas: (a) use of a standardized risk and need assessment tool, (b) use of cognitive-behavioral programs to address criminogenic needs, and (c) use of swift and certain responses to shape behavior. The review focuses on the unanswered questions regarding implementation and organizational change strategies to increase receptivity for the evidence-based practices, lay the foundation for improving effectiveness of “evidence-based practices and treatments,” and provide a work environment that supports evidence-based practices and treatments. This article outlines a research agenda to build implementation knowledge that can further the use of evidence-based practices and treatments.


Author(s):  
Enola Proctor ◽  
Alicia Bunger

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document