Dataset Information

Advancing mechanisms of implementation to accelerate sustainable evidence-based practice integration: protocol for generating a research agenda.

ABSTRACT: Mechanisms explain how implementation strategies work. Implementation research requires careful operationalisation and empirical study of the causal pathway(s) by which strategies effect change, and factors that may amplify or weaken their effects. Understanding mechanisms is critically important to replicate findings, learn from negative studies or adapt an implementation strategy developed in one setting to another. Without understanding implementation mechanisms, it is difficult to design strategies to produce expected effects across contexts, which may have disproportionate effects on settings in which priority populations receive care. This manuscript outlines the protocol for an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded initiative to: (1) establish priorities for an agenda to guide research on implementation mechanisms in health and public health, and (2) disseminate the agenda to research, policy and practice audiences. A network of scientific experts will convene in 'Deep Dive' meetings across 3 years. A research agenda will be generated through analysis and synthesis of information from six sources: (1) systematic reviews, (2) network members' approaches to studying mechanisms, (3) new proposals presented in implementation proposal feedback sessions, (4) working group sessions conducted in a leading implementation research training institute, (5) breakout sessions at the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration's (SIRC) 2019 conference and (6) SIRC conference abstracts. Two members will extract mechanism-relevant text segments from each data source and a third member will generate statements as an input for concept mapping. Concept mapping will generate unique clusters of challenges, and the network will engage in a nominal group process to identify priorities for the research agenda. This initiative will yield an actionable research agenda to guide research to identify and test mechanisms of change for implementation strategies. The agenda will be disseminated via multiple channels to solicit feedback and promote rigorous research on implementation mechanisms.

SUBMITTER: Lewis CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8524292 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation research is increasingly being recognised as an important discipline seeking to maximise the benefits of evidence-based interventions. Although capacity-building efforts are ongoing, there has been limited attention on the contextual and health system peculiarities in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, given the challenges encountered during the implementation of health interventions, the field of implementation research requires a creative attempt to build expertise for health researchers and practitioners simultaneously. With support from the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, we have developed an implementation research short course that targets both researchers and practitioners. This paper seeks to explain the course development processes and report on training evaluations, highlighting its relevance for inter-institutional and inter-regional capacity strengthening. METHODS:The development of the implementation research course curriculum was categorised into four phases, namely the formation of a core curriculum development team, course content development, internal reviews and pilot, and external reviews and evaluations. Five modules were developed covering Introduction to implementation research, Methods in implementation research, Ethics and quality management in implementation research, Community and stakeholder engagement, and Dissemination in implementation research. Course evaluations were conducted using developed tools measuring participants' reactions and learning. RESULTS:From 2016 to 2018, the IR curriculum has been used to train a total of 165 researchers and practitioners predominantly from African countries, the majority of whom are males (57%) and researchers/academics (79.4%). Participants generally gave positive ratings (e.g. integration of concepts) for their reactions to the training. Under 'learnings', participants indicated improvement in their knowledge in areas such as identification of implementation research problems and questions. CONCLUSION:The approach for training both researchers and practitioners offers a dynamic opportunity for the acquisition and sharing of knowledge for both categories of learners. This approach was crucial in demonstrating a key characteristic of implementation research (e.g. multidisciplinary) practically evident during the training sessions. Using such a model to effectively train participants from various low- and middle-income countries shows the opportunities this training curriculum offers as a capacity-building tool.

Project description:BackgroundMany interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts.MethodsWe used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts.ResultsThe CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct.ConclusionThe CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.

Project description:We propose that common elements approaches can advance implementation research and practice and facilitate pragmatic use of intervention and implementation evidence. Common elements are practices or processes frequently shared by interventions or implementations. Traditional common elements methodologies use synthesis, distillation, and statistics to describe and evaluate the merit of common ingredients in effective interventions. Recent developments include identifying and testing common configurations of elements, processes, and context variables across the literature of effective interventions and implementations. While common elements thinking has grown popular in intervention science, it has rarely been utilized in implementation science, and specifically, combined with the intervention literature. The goals of this conceptual methodology paper are to (1) provide an overview of the common elements concept and how it may advance implementation research and usability for practice, (2) give a step-by-step guide to systematic common elements reviews that synthesizes and distills the intervention and implementation literature together, and (3) offer recommendations for advancing element-level evidence in implementation science. A narrative review of the common elements literature was conducted with attention to applications to implementation research. A six-step guide to using an advanced common elements methodology was provided. Examples of potential results are presented, along with a review of the implications for implementation research and practice. Finally, we reviewed methodological limitations in current common elements approaches, and identified steps towards realizing their potential. Common elements methodologies can (a) synthesize and distill the implementation science literature into practical applications, (b) generate evidence-informed hypotheses about key elements and determinants in implementation and intervention processes and mechanisms, and (c) promote evidence-informed precision tailoring of intervention and implementation to context. To realize this potential, common elements approaches need improved reporting of details from both successful and unsuccessful intervention and implementation research, more data availability, and more testing and investigation of causal processes and mechanisms of change from diverse theories.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-023-00077-4.

Project description:BackgroundIn order to close the gap between discoveries that could improve health, and widespread impact on routine health care practice, there is a need for greater attention to the factors that influence dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices. Evidence synthesis projects (e.g., systematic reviews) could contribute to this effort by collecting and synthesizing data relevant to dissemination and implementation. Such an advance would facilitate the spread of high-value, effective, and sustainable interventions.ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to evaluate the feasibility of extracting factors related to implementation during evidence synthesis in order to enhance the replicability of successes of studies of interventions in health care settings.DesignDrawing on the implementation science literature, we suggest 10 established implementation measures that should be considered when conducting evidence synthesis projects. We describe opportunities to assess these constructs in current literature and illustrate these methods through an example of a systematic review.SubjectsTwenty-nine studies of interventions aimed at improving clinician-patient communication in clinical settings.Key resultsWe identified acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, intervention complexity, penetration, reach, and sustainability as factors that are feasible and appropriate to extract during an evidence synthesis project.ConclusionsTo fully understand the potential value of a health care innovation, it is important to consider not only its effectiveness, but also the process, demands, and resource requirements involved in downstream implementation. While there is variation in the degree to which intervention studies currently report implementation factors, there is a growing demand for this information. Abstracting information about these factors may enhance the value of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis efforts, improving the dissemination and adoption of interventions that are effective, feasible, and sustainable across different contexts.

Dataset Information

Advancing mechanisms of implementation to accelerate sustainable evidence-based practice integration: protocol for generating a research agenda.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets