Dataset Information

Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at taking cardiac prevention to scale in primary care practice. METHODS:EvidenceNOW is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality initiative that funded seven cooperatives across seven regions in the USA. Cooperatives implemented multi-component interventions to improve heart health and build quality improvement capacity, and used a range of implementation strategies to foster practice change. We used ERIC to identify cooperatives' implementation strategies and specified the actor, action, target, dose, temporality, justification, and expected outcome for each. We mapped and compiled a matrix of the specified ERIC strategies across the cooperatives, and used consensus to resolve mapping differences. We then grouped implementation strategies by outcomes and justifications, which led to insights regarding the use of and linkages between ERIC strategies in real-world scale-up efforts. RESULTS:Thirty-three ERIC strategies were used by cooperatives. We identified a range of revisions to the ERIC taxonomy to improve the practical application of these strategies. These proposed changes include revisions to four strategy names and 12 definitions. We suggest adding three new strategies because they encapsulate distinct actions that were not described in the existing ERIC taxonomy. In addition, we organized ERIC implementation strategies into four functional groupings based on the way we observed them being applied in practice. These groupings show how ERIC strategies are, out of necessity, interconnected, to achieve the work involved in rapidly taking evidence to scale. CONCLUSIONS:Findings of our work suggest revisions to the ERIC implementation strategies to reflect their utilization in real-work dissemination and implementation efforts. The functional groupings of the ERIC implementation strategies that emerged from on-the-ground implementers will help guide others in choosing among and linking multiple implementation strategies when planning small- and large-scale implementation efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered as Observational Study at www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02560428 ).

SUBMITTER: Perry CK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6429753 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory.

Perry Cynthia K CK Damschroder Laura J LJ Hemler Jennifer R JR Woodson Tanisha T TT Ono Sarah S SS Cohen Deborah J DJ

Implementation science : IS 20190321 1

<h4>Background</h4>The use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at tak ...[more]

PMID: 30898133

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Implementation strategies used to enhance the implementation of interventions during efficacy and effectiveness studies are rarely reported. Tracking and reporting implementation strategies during these phases has potential to improve future research studies and real-world implementation. We present an exemplar of how this might be executed by specifying and reporting the implementation strategies that were used during a school-based efficacy trial, Project POWER, which tested a trauma-informed prevention program delivered by a university research team, community members, and school staff facilitators in 29 schools. Methods: Following the conclusion of the 4-year trial, core Project POWER research team members identified the implementation strategies that supported intervention delivery during the trial using an established taxonomy of school-based implementation strategies. The actors, actions, action targets, temporality, dose, and implementation outcomes were specified using established implementation strategies reporting guidelines. Results: The research team identified 37 implementation strategies that were used during the Project POWER trial. Most strategies fell within the categories of Train and Educate Stakeholders, Use Evaluative and Iterative Strategies, and Develop Stakeholder Interrelationships. Actors included members of the research team and partner schools. Strategies were used multiple times during the preparation and implementation phases. Action targets were most often characteristics of individuals, implementation process, and characteristics of the inner setting. Strategies predominantly targeted the implementation outcomes of fidelity, acceptability, feasibility, and adoption. Conclusions: This study provided evidence that implementation strategies are used and can be identified in efficacy research using a retrospective approach. Identifying and specifying implementation strategies used during the initial phases of the translational research pipeline can inform the implementation strategies that are carried forward, adapted, or discontinued in future trials and routine practice to improve implementation and effectiveness outcomes. Plain Language Abstract Intervention development and testing often occurs separately from implementation planning. However, evaluating an intervention without considering how it will be subsequently used in real-world settings is a major factor contributing to the research-to-practice gap. During the rigorous testing of interventions, research teams invest significant effort and resources to ensure their program is delivered as intended and so that beneficial outcomes can be assessed. However, the methods or techniques used to support implementation (i.e., implementation strategies) are often not measured or specified to be used and evaluated during later research or included with intervention materials that are distributed to stakeholders; this is a missed opportunity. This study identifies and describes the implementation strategies used during a large school-based research trial of a universal trauma-informed prevention program delivered by a university research team, community members, and school staff. In collaboration with the trial’s research team, we identified 37 implementation strategies that were used during the trial and defined how each strategy was used, including: the actions (i.e., things done), people who carried out the strategies, the targets of the actions, when and how often during the implementation process the strategies were used, and which implementation outcome(s) the strategy was expected to impact. Explicating implementation strategies during early phases of intervention research in schools can inform which implementation supports to carry forward, adapt, or discontinue in future studies and routine practice.

Project description:The identification and use of implementation strategies in implementation research and practice have strengthened our understanding of the implementation process as well as the causal pathways between mechanisms, strategies, and implementation outcomes. Although these contributions have advanced the application of strategies, there is still a need to learn more about how strategies might integrate relational exchanges and interactions. The inclusion of critical perspectives has been limited in implementation science, and theories such as Relational Theory can expand our understanding of the relational nature of implementation and enhance rigor through alternative theoretical applications. This study applied Relational Theory through a qualitative directed content analysis of the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) implementation strategies and examine relational components in strategy descriptions. Three reviewers used the structured approach to review and categorize the implementation strategies based on the Relational and Transactional Strategy Continuum measure, which operationalizes types of interactions, exchanges and alliances. Relational alliance strategies are those in which there is mutual growth and accountability, frequent interaction, shared power, and potential vulnerability. Operational alliances include forms of working exchanges between parties with balanced transactional and relational features. Operational alliances can be somewhat interactive in nature, with minor exchanges and limited accountability. Transactional alliance strategies are mostly uni-directional, influenced by power differentials, and do not require mutual growth, commitment, or exchange; thus, the power of growth is inherently one-sided. Results from the review suggest more implementation strategies with relational alliance features (highly relational, n = 17, semi-relational, n = 19) compared to transactional (highly transactional, n = 9, semi-transactional, n = 10) and 18 strategies coded as operational alliances. The qualitative review revealed opportunities to further expand how relational exchanges are considered within the implementation strategies descriptions, as well as the role of actors and power dynamics within strategy exchanges. The Relational and Transactional Strategy Continuum measure can help practitioners and researchers consider the sequencing, pairing, and impact on outcomes of different types and combinations of strategies in implementation practice and research. Additionally, the measure can support reflection on strategies that promote positive alliances, frequent connections, bi-directional communication, and power sharing.

Project description:BackgroundCross-system interventions that integrate health, behavioral health, and social services can improve client outcomes and expand community impact. Successful implementation of these interventions depends on the extent to which service partners can align frontline services and organizational operations. However, collaboration strategies linking multiple implementation contexts have received limited empirical attention. This study identifies, describes, and specifies multi-level collaboration strategies used during the implementation of Ohio Sobriety Treatment and Reducing Trauma (Ohio START), a cross-system intervention that integrates services across two systems (child welfare and evidence-based behavioral health services) for families that are affected by co-occurring child maltreatment and parental substance use disorders.MethodsIn phase 1, we used a multi-site qualitative design with 17 counties that implemented Ohio START. Qualitative data were gathered from 104 staff from child welfare agencies, behavioral health treatment organizations, and regional behavioral health boards involved in implementation via 48 small group interviews about collaborative approaches to implementation. To examine cross-system collaboration strategies, qualitative data were analyzed using an iterative template approach and content analysis. In phase 2, a 16-member expert panel met to validate and specify the cross-system collaboration strategies identified in the interviews. The panel was comprised of key child welfare and behavioral health partners and scholars.ResultsIn phase 1, we identified seven cross-system collaboration strategies used for implementation. Three strategies were used to staff the program: (1) contract for expertise, (2) provide joint supervision, and (3) co-locate staff. Two strategies were used to promote service access: (4) referral protocols and (5) expedited access agreements. Two strategies were used to align case plans: (6) shared decision-making meetings, and (7) sharing data. In phase 2, expert panelists specified operational details of the cross-system collaboration strategies, and explained the processes by which strategies were perceived to improve implementation and service system outcomes.ConclusionsWe identified a range of cross-system collaboration strategies that show promise for improving staffing, service access, and case planning. Leaders, supervisors, and frontline staff used these strategies during all phases of implementation. These findings lay the foundation for future experimental and quasi-experimental studies that test the effectiveness of cross-system collaboration strategies.

Project description:BackgroundLynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited, cancer predisposition syndrome associated with an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and other cancer types. Identifying individuals with LS allows access to cancer risk management strategies proven to reduce cancer incidence and improve survival. However, LS is underdiagnosed and genetic referral rates are poor. Improving LS referral is complex, and requires multisystem behaviour change. Although barriers have been identified, evidence-based strategies to facilitate behaviour change are lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of a theory-based implementation approach against a non-theory based approach for improving detection of LS amongst Australian patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsA two-arm parallel cluster randomised trial design will be used to compare two identical, structured implementation approaches, distinguished only by the use of theory to identify barriers and design targeted intervention strategies, to improve LS referral practices in eight large Australian hospital networks. Each hospital network will be randomly allocated to a trial arm, with stratification by state. A trained healthcare professional will lead the following phases at each site: (1) undertake baseline clinical practice audits, (2) form multidisciplinary Implementation Teams, (3) identify target behaviours for practice change, (4) identify barriers to change, (5) generate intervention strategies, (6) support staff to implement interventions and (7) evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention using post-implementation clinical data. The theoretical and non-theoretical components of each trial arm will be distinguished in phases 4-5. Study outcomes include a LS referral process map for each hospital network, with evaluation of the proportion of patients with risk-appropriate completion of the LS referral pathway within 2?months of CRC resection pre and post implementation.DiscussionThis trial will determine the more effective approach for improving the detection of LS amongst patients with CRC, whilst also advancing understanding of the impact of theory-based implementation approaches in complex health systems and the feasibility of training healthcare professionals to use them. Insights gained will guide the development of future interventions to improve LS identification on a larger scale and across different contexts, as well as efforts to address the gap between evidence and practice in the rapidly evolving field of genomic research.Trial registrationANZCTR, ACTRN12618001072202 . Registered on 27 June 2018.

Dataset Information

Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory.

Publications

Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets