Project description:BackgroundFor successful implementation of an innovation within a complex adaptive system, we need to understand the ways that implementation processes and their contexts shape each other. To do this, we need to explore the work people do to make sense of an innovation and integrate it into their workflow and the contextual elements that impact implementation. Combining Normalization Process Theory (NPT) with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) offers an approach to achieve this. NPT is an implementation process theory that explains how changes in the way people think about and use an innovation occurs, while CFIR is a framework that categorizes and describes contextual determinants across five domains that influence implementation. We demonstrate through a case example from our prior research how we integrated NPT and CFIR to inform the development of the interview guide, coding manual, and analysis of the findings.MethodsIn collaboration with our stakeholders, we selected NPT and CFIR to study the implementation process and co-developed an interview guide to elicit responses that would illuminate concepts from both. We conducted, audio-recorded, and transcribed 28 interviews with various professionals involved with the implementation. Based on independent coding of select transcripts and team discussion comparing, clarifying, and crystallizing codes, we developed a coding manual integrating CFIR and NPT constructs. We applied the integrated codes to all interview transcripts.ResultsOur findings highlight how integrating CFIR domains with NPT mechanisms adds explanatory strength to the analysis of implementation processes, with particular implications for practical strategies to facilitate implementation. Multiple coding across both theoretical frames captured the entanglement of process and context. Integrating NPT and CFIR enriched understandings of how interactions between implementation processes and contextual determinants shaped each other during implementation.ConclusionThe integration of NPT and CFIR provides guidance to identify and explore complex entangled interactions between agents, processes, and contextual conditions within and beyond organizations to embed innovations into routine practices. Nuanced understandings gained through this approach moves understandings beyond descriptions of determinants to explain how change occurs or not during implementation. Mechanism-based explanations illuminate concrete practical strategies to support implementation.

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:BackgroundThere is a paucity of translational research programmes to improve implementation of evidence-based care in drug and alcohol settings. This systematic review aimed to provide a synthesis and evaluation of the effectiveness of implementation programmes of treatment for patients with drug and alcohol problems using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).MethodsA comprehensive systematic review was conducted using five online databases (from inception onwards). Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies evaluating strategies used to implement evidence-based psychosocial treatments for alcohol and substance use disorders. Extracted data were qualitatively synthesised for common themes according to the CFIR. Primary outcomes included the implementation, service system or clinical practice. Risk of bias of individual studies was appraised using appropriate tools. A protocol was registered with (PROSPERO) (CRD42019123812) and published previously (Louie et al. Systematic 9:2020).ResultsOf the 2965 references identified, twenty studies were included in this review. Implementation research has employed a wide range of strategies to train clinicians in a few key evidence-based approaches to treatment. Implementation strategies were informed by a range of theories, with only two studies using an implementation framework (Baer et al. J Substance Abuse Treatment 37:191-202, 2009) used Context-Tailored Training and Helseth et al. J Substance Abuse Treatment 95:26-34, 2018) used the CFIR). Thirty of the 36 subdomains of the CFIR were evaluated by included studies, but the majority were concerned with the Characteristics of Individuals domain (75%), with less than half measuring Intervention Characteristics (45%) and Inner Setting constructs (25%), and only one study measuring the Outer Setting and Process domains. The most common primary outcome was the effectiveness of implementation strategies on treatment fidelity. Although several studies found clinician characteristics influenced the implementation outcome (40%) and many obtained clinical outcomes (40%), only five studies measured service system outcomes and only four studies evaluated the implementation.ConclusionsWhile research has begun to accumulate in domains such as Characteristics of Individuals and Intervention Characteristics (e.g. education, beliefs and attitudes and organisational openness to new techniques), this review has identified significant gaps in the remaining CFIR domains including organisational factors, external forces and factors related to the process of the implementation itself. Findings of the review highlight important areas for future research and the utility of applying comprehensive implementation frameworks.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2009, Damschroder et al. developed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which provides a comprehensive listing of constructs thought to influence implementation. This systematic review assesses the extent to which the CFIR's use in implementation research fulfills goals set forth by Damschroder et al. in terms of breadth of use, depth of application, and contribution to implementation research.MethodsWe searched Scopus and Web of Science for publications that cited the original CFIR publication by Damschroder et al. (Implement Sci 4:50, 2009) and downloaded each unique result for review. After applying exclusion criteria, the final articles were empirical studies published in peer-review journals that used the CFIR in a meaningful way (i.e., used the CFIR to guide data collection, measurement, coding, analysis, and/or reporting). A framework analysis approach was used to guide abstraction and synthesis of the included articles.ResultsTwenty-six of 429 unique articles (6 %) met inclusion criteria. We found great breadth in CFIR application; the CFIR was applied across a wide variety of study objectives, settings, and units of analysis. There was also variation in the method of included studies (mixed methods (n = 13); qualitative (n = 10); quantitative (n = 3)). Depth of CFIR application revealed some areas for improvement. Few studies (n = 3) reported justification for selection of CFIR constructs used; the majority of studies (n = 14) used the CFIR to guide data analysis only; and few studies investigated any outcomes (n = 11). Finally, reflections on the contribution of the CFIR to implementation research were scarce.ConclusionsOur results indicate that the CFIR has been used across a wide range of studies, though more in-depth use of the CFIR may help advance implementation science. To harness its potential, researchers should consider how to most meaningfully use the CFIR. Specific recommendations for applying the CFIR include explicitly justifying selection of CFIR constructs; integrating the CFIR throughout the research process (in study design, data collection, and analysis); and appropriately using the CFIR given the phase of implementation of the research (e.g., if the research is post-implementation, using the CFIR to link determinants of implementation to outcomes).

Project description:BackgroundQualitative approaches, alone or in mixed methods, are prominent within implementation science. However, traditional qualitative approaches are resource intensive, which has led to the development of rapid qualitative approaches. Published rapid approaches are often inductive in nature and rely on transcripts of interviews. We describe a deductive rapid analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted for two cohorts of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE). The CFIR guided data collection and analysis. In cohort A, we used our traditional CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where two analysts completed independent in-depth manual coding of interview transcripts using qualitative software. In cohort B, we used our new rapid CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately "coded" notes into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited the matrix. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor.ResultsCohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. The facility-level analysis phase provided the greatest savings: 14 h/facility for the traditional analysis versus 3.92 h/facility for the rapid analysis. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches.ConclusionOur rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. Researchers should consider the following when employing our approach: (1) team expertise in the CFIR and qualitative methods, (2) level of detail needed to meet project aims, (3) mode of data to analyze, and (4) advantages and disadvantages of using the CFIR.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing evidence supporting the use of mobile health (mHealth) interventions in low- and middle-income countries to address resource limitations in the delivery of health information and services to vulnerable populations. In parallel, there is an increasing emphasis on the use of implementation science tools and frameworks for the early identification of implementation barriers and to improve the acceptability, appropriateness, and adoption of mHealth interventions in resource-limited settings. However, there are limited examples of the application of implementation science tools and frameworks to the formative phase of mHealth design for resource-limited settings despite the potential benefits of this work for enhancing subsequent implementation, scale-up, and sustainability.ObjectiveWe presented a case study on the use of an implementation science framework in mHealth design. In particular, we illustrated the usability of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for organizing and interpreting formative research findings during the design of the mobile Inspección Visual con Ácido Acético (mIVAA) system in Lima, Peru.MethodsWe collected formative data from prospective users of the mIVAA intervention using multiple research methodologies, including structured observations, surveys, group and individual interviews, and discussions with local stakeholders at the partnering organization in Peru. These activities enabled the documentation of clinical workflows, perceived barriers to and facilitators of mIVAA, overarching barriers to cervical cancer screening in community-based settings, and related local policies and guidelines in health care. Using a convergent mixed methods analytic approach and the CFIR as an organizing framework, we mapped formative research findings to identify key implementation barriers and inform iterations of the mIVAA system design.ResultsIn the setting of our case study, most implementation barriers were identified in the CFIR domains of intervention characteristics and inner setting. All but one barrier were addressed before mIVAA deployment by modifying the system design and adding supportive resources. Solutions involved improvements to infrastructure, including cellular data plans to avoid disruption from internet failure; improved process and flow, including an updated software interface; and better user role definition for image capture to be consistent with local health care laws.ConclusionsThe CFIR can serve as a comprehensive framework for organizing formative research data and identifying key implementation barriers during mHealth intervention design. In our case study of the mIVAA system in Peru, formative research contributing to the CFIR domains of intervention characteristics and inner setting elicited the most key barriers to implementation. The early identification of barriers enabled design iterations before system deployment. Future efforts to develop mHealth interventions for low- and middle-income countries may benefit from using the approach presented in this case study as well as prioritizing the CFIR domains of intervention characteristics and inner setting.

Dataset Information

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)

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets