Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Health care organizations are constantly changing as a result of technological advancements, ageing populations, changing disease patterns, new discoveries for the treatment of diseases and political reforms and policy initiatives. Changes can be challenging because they contradict humans’ basic need for a stable environment. The present study poses the question: what characterizes successful organizational changes in health care? The aim was to investigate the characteristics of changes of relevance for the work of health care professionals that they deemed successful. Methods The study was based on semi-structured interviews with 30 health care professionals: 11 physicians, 12 registered nurses and seven assistant nurses employed in the Swedish health care system. An inductive approach was applied using questions based on the existing literature on organizational change and change responses. The questions concerned the interviewees’ experiences and perceptions of any changes that they considered to have affected their work, regardless of whether these changes were “objectively” large or small changes. The interviewees’ responses were analysed using directed content analysis. Results The analysis yielded three categories concerning characteristics of successful changes: having the opportunity to influence the change; being prepared for the change; valuing the change. The interviewees emphasized the importance of having the opportunity to influence the organizational changes that are implemented. Changes that were initiated by the professionals themselves were considered the easiest and were rarely resisted. Changes that were clearly communicated to allow for preparation increased the chances for success. The interviewees did not support organizational changes that were perceived to be implemented unexpectedly and/or without prior communication. They conveyed that it was important for them to understand the need for and benefits of organizational changes. They particularly valued and perceived as successful organizational changes with a patient focus, with clear benefits to patients. Conclusions Organizational changes in health care are more likely to succeed when health care professionals have the opportunity to influence the change, feel prepared for the change and recognize the value of the change, including perceiving the benefit of the change for patients.

Background In 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. Methods We 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. Results Twenty-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. Conclusions Our 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).

Background Strategies are central to the National Institutes of Health’s definition of implementation research as “the study of strategies to integrate evidence-based interventions into specific settings.” Multiple scholars have proposed lists of the strategies used in implementation research and practice, which they increasingly are classifying under the single term “implementation strategies.” We contend that classifying all strategies under a single term leads to confusion, impedes synthesis across studies, and limits advancement of the full range of strategies of importance to implementation. To address this concern, we offer a system for classifying implementation strategies that builds on Proctor and colleagues’ (2013) reporting guidelines, which recommend that authors not only name and define their implementation strategies but also specify who enacted the strategy (i.e., the actor) and the level and determinants that were targeted (i.e., the action targets). Main body We build on Wandersman and colleagues’ Interactive Systems Framework to distinguish strategies based on whether they are enacted by actors functioning as part of a Delivery, Support, or Synthesis and Translation System. We build on Damschroder and colleague’s Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to distinguish the levels that strategies target (intervention, inner setting, outer setting, individual, and process). We then draw on numerous resources to identify determinants, which are conceptualized as modifiable factors that prevent or enable the adoption and implementation of evidence-based interventions. Identifying actors and targets resulted in five conceptually distinct classes of implementation strategies: dissemination, implementation process, integration, capacity-building, and scale-up. In our descriptions of each class, we identify the level of the Interactive System Framework at which the strategy is enacted (actors), level and determinants targeted (action targets), and outcomes used to assess strategy effectiveness. We illustrate how each class would apply to efforts to improve colorectal cancer screening rates in Federally Qualified Health Centers. Conclusions Structuring strategies into classes will aid reporting of implementation research findings, alignment of strategies with relevant theories, synthesis of findings across studies, and identification of potential gaps in current strategy listings. Organizing strategies into classes also will assist users in locating the strategies that best match their needs.

Background Implementation science is shifting from qualifying adaptations as good or bad towards understanding adaptations and their impact. Existing adaptation classification frameworks are largely descriptive (e.g., who made the adaptation) and geared towards researchers. They do not help practitioners in decision-making around adaptations (e.g., is an adaptation likely to have negative impacts? Should it be pursued?). Moreover, they lack constructs to consider “ripple effects” of adaptations (i.e., both intended and unintended impacts on outcomes, recognizing that an adaptation designed to have a positive impact on one outcome may have unintended impacts on other outcomes). Finally, they do not specify relationships between adaptations and outcomes, including mediating and moderating relationships. The objective of our research was to promote systematic assessment of intended and unintended impacts of adaptations by using existing frameworks to create a model that proposes relationships among constructs. Materials and methods We reviewed, consolidated, and refined constructs from two adaptation frameworks and one intervention-implementation outcome framework. Using the consolidated and refined constructs, we coded qualitative descriptions of 14 adaptations made to an existing evidence-based intervention; the 14 adaptations were designed in prior research by a stakeholder panel using a modified Delphi approach. Each of the 14 adaptations had detailed descriptions, including the nature of the adaptation, who made it, and its goal and reason. Using coded data, we arranged constructs from existing frameworks into a model, the Model for Adaptation Design and Impact (MADI), that identifies adaptation characteristics, their intended and unintended impacts (i.e., ripple effects), and potential mediators and moderators of adaptations’ impact on outcomes. We also developed a decision aid and website ( MADIguide.org ) to help implementation scientists apply MADI in their work. Results and conclusions Our model and associated decision aids build on existing frameworks by comprehensively characterizing adaptations, proposing how adaptations impact outcomes, and offering practical guidance for designing adaptations. MADI encourages researchers to think about potential causal pathways of adaptations (e.g., mediators and moderators) and adaptations’ intended and unintended impacts on outcomes. MADI encourages practitioners to design adaptations in a way that anticipates intended and unintended impacts and leverages best practice from research.

Background Theories provide a synthesizing architecture for implementation science. The underuse, superficial use, and misuse of theories pose a substantial scientific challenge for implementation science and may relate to challenges in selecting from the many theories in the field. Implementation scientists may benefit from guidance for selecting a theory for a specific study or project. Understanding how implementation scientists select theories will help inform efforts to develop such guidance. Our objective was to identify which theories implementation scientists use, how they use theories, and the criteria used to select theories. Methods We identified initial lists of uses and criteria for selecting implementation theories based on seminal articles and an iterative consensus process. We incorporated these lists into a self-administered survey for completion by self-identified implementation scientists. We recruited potential respondents at the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health and via several international email lists. We used frequencies and percentages to report results. Results Two hundred twenty-three implementation scientists from 12 countries responded to the survey. They reported using more than 100 different theories spanning several disciplines. Respondents reported using theories primarily to identify implementation determinants, inform data collection, enhance conceptual clarity, and guide implementation planning. Of the 19 criteria presented in the survey, the criteria used by the most respondents to select theory included analytic level (58%), logical consistency/plausibility (56%), empirical support (53%), and description of a change process (54%). The criteria used by the fewest respondents included fecundity (10%), uniqueness (12%), and falsifiability (15%). Conclusions Implementation scientists use a large number of criteria to select theories, but there is little consensus on which are most important. Our results suggest that the selection of implementation theories is often haphazard or driven by convenience or prior exposure. Variation in approaches to selecting theory warn against prescriptive guidance for theory selection. Instead, implementation scientists may benefit from considering the criteria that we propose in this paper and using them to justify their theory selection. Future research should seek to refine the criteria for theory selection to promote more consistent and appropriate use of theory in implementation science.

Middle-level managers (MLMs; i.e., healthcare professionals who may fill roles including obtaining and diffusing information, adapting information and the intervention, mediating between strategy and day-to-day activities, and selling intervention implementation) have been identified as having significant influence on evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation. We argue that understanding whether and how MLMs influence EBP implementation is aided by drawing upon organization theory. Organization theories propose strategies for increasing MLMs’ opportunities to facilitate implementation by optimizing their appreciation of constructs which we argue have heretofore been treated separately to the detriment of understanding and facilitating implementation: EBPs, context, and implementation strategies. Specifically, organization theory encourages us to delineate different types of MLMs and consider how generalist and hybrid MLMs make different contributions to EBP implementation. Organization theories also suggest that MLMs’ understanding of context allows them to adapt EBPs to promote implementation and effectiveness; MLMs’ potential vertical linking pin role may be supported by increasing MLMs’ interactions with external environment, helping them to understand strategic pressures and opportunities; and how lateral connections among MLMs have the potential to optimize their contribution to EBP implementation as a collective force. We end with recommendations for practice and future research.

Background Over 60 implementation frameworks exist. Using multiple frameworks may help researchers to address multiple study purposes, levels, and degrees of theoretical heritage and operationalizability; however, using multiple frameworks may result in unnecessary complexity and redundancy if doing so does not address study needs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) are both well-operationalized, multi-level implementation determinant frameworks derived from theory. As such, the rationale for using the frameworks in combination (i.e., CFIR + TDF) is unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to elucidate the rationale for using CFIR + TDF by (1) describing studies that have used CFIR + TDF, (2) how they used CFIR + TDF, and (2) their stated rationale for using CFIR + TDF. Methods We undertook a systematic review to identify studies that mentioned both the CFIR and the TDF, were written in English, were peer-reviewed, and reported either a protocol or results of an empirical study in MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, or Google Scholar. We then abstracted data into a matrix and analyzed it qualitatively, identifying salient themes. Findings We identified five protocols and seven completed studies that used CFIR + TDF. CFIR + TDF was applied to studies in several countries, to a range of healthcare interventions, and at multiple intervention phases; used many designs, methods, and units of analysis; and assessed a variety of outcomes. Three studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple study purposes. Six studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple conceptual levels. Four studies did not explicitly state their rationale for using CFIR + TDF. Conclusions Differences in the purposes that authors of the CFIR (e.g., comprehensive set of implementation determinants) and the TDF (e.g., intervention development) propose help to justify the use of CFIR + TDF. Given that the CFIR and the TDF are both multi-level frameworks, the rationale that using CFIR + TDF is needed to address multiple conceptual levels may reflect potentially misleading conventional wisdom. On the other hand, using CFIR + TDF may more fully define the multi-level nature of implementation. To avoid concerns about unnecessary complexity and redundancy, scholars who use CFIR + TDF and combinations of other frameworks should specify how the frameworks contribute to their study. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42015027615

Background Implementation science has focused mainly on the initial uptake and use of evidence-based practices (EBPs), with less attention to sustainment—i.e., continuous use of these practices, as intended, over time in ongoing operations, often involving adaptation to dynamic contexts. Declining EBP use following implementation is well-documented yet poorly understood. Using theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) to conceptualize sustainment could advance understanding. We consolidated knowledge from published reviews of sustainment studies to identify TMFs with the potential to conceptualize sustainment, evaluate past uses of TMFs in sustainment studies, and assess the TMFs’ potential contribution to developing sustainment strategies. Methods We drew upon reviews of sustainment studies published within the past 10 years, evaluated the frequency with which included articles used a TMF for conceptualizing sustainment, and evaluated the relevance of TMFs to sustainment research using the Theory, Model, and Framework Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST). Specifically, we examined whether the TMFs were familiar to researchers, hypothesized relationships among constructs, provided a face-valid explanation of relationships, and included sustainment as an outcome. Findings Nine sustainment reviews referenced 648 studies; these studies cited 76 unique TMFs. Only 28 TMFs were used in more than one study. Of the 19 TMFs that met the criteria for T-CaST analysis, six TMFs explicitly included sustainment as the outcome of interest, 12 offered face-valid explanations of proposed conceptual relationships, and six identified mechanisms underlying relationships between included constructs and sustainment. Only 11 TMFs performed adequately with respect to all these criteria. Conclusions We identified 76 TMFs that have been used in sustainment studies. Of these, most were only used once, contributing to a fractured understanding of sustainment. Improved reporting and use of TMFs may improve understanding of this critical topic. Of the more consistently used TMFs, few proposed face-valid relationships between included constructs and sustainment, limiting their ability to advance our understanding and identify potential sustainment strategies. Future research is needed to explore the TMFs that we identified as potentially relevant, as well as TMFs not identified in our study that nonetheless have the potential to advance our understanding of sustainment and identification of strategies for sustaining EBP use.

Background Theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) are foundational for generalizing implementation efforts and research findings. However, TMF and the criteria used to select them are not often described in published articles, perhaps due in part to the challenge of selecting from among the many TMF that exist in the field. The objective of this international study was to develop a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide their implementation projects. Methods Implementation scientists across the USA, the UK, and Canada identified and rated conceptually distinct categories of criteria in a concept mapping exercise. We then used the concept mapping results to develop a tool to help users select appropriate TMF for their projects. We assessed the tool’s usefulness through expert consensus and cognitive and semi-structured interviews with implementation scientists. Results Thirty-seven implementation scientists (19 researchers and 18 practitioners) identified four criteria domains: usability, testability, applicability, and familiarity. We then developed a prototype of the tool that included a list of 25 criteria organized by domain, definitions of the criteria, and a case example illustrating an application of the tool. Results of cognitive and semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for the tool to (1) be as succinct as possible; (2) have separate versions to meet the unique needs of researchers versus practitioners; (3) include easily understood terms; (4) include an introduction that clearly describes the tool’s purpose and benefits; (5) provide space for noting project information, comparing and scoring TMF, and accommodating contributions from multiple team members; and (6) include more case examples illustrating its application. Interview participants agreed that the tool (1) offered them a way to select from among candidate TMF, (2) helped them be explicit about the criteria that they used to select a TMF, and (3) enabled them to compare, select from among, and/or consider the usefulness of combining multiple TMF. These revisions resulted in the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST), a paper and web-enabled tool that includes 16 specific criteria that can be used to consider and justify the selection of TMF for a given project. Criteria are organized within four categories: applicability, usability, testability, and acceptability. Conclusions T-CaST is a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide implementation projects. Additionally, T-CaST has the potential to promote transparent reporting of criteria used to select TMF within and beyond the field of implementation science.

Background Middle managers have received little attention in extant health services research, yet they may have a key role in healthcare innovation implementation. The gap between evidence of effective care and practice may be attributed in part to poor healthcare innovation implementation. Investigating middle managers' role in healthcare innovation implementation may reveal an opportunity for improvement. In this paper, we present a theory of middle managers' role in healthcare innovation implementation to fill the gap in the literature and to stimulate research that empirically examines middle managers' influence on innovation implementation in healthcare organizations. Discussion Extant healthcare innovation implementation research has primarily focused on the roles of physicians and top managers. Largely overlooked is the role of middle managers. We suggest that middle managers influence healthcare innovation implementation by diffusing information, synthesizing information, mediating between strategy and day-to-day activities, and selling innovation implementation. Summary Teamwork designs have become popular in healthcare organizations. Because middle managers oversee these team initiatives, their potential to influence innovation implementation has grown. Future research should investigate middle managers' role in healthcare innovation implementation. Findings may aid top managers in leveraging middle managers' influence to improve the effectiveness of healthcare innovation implementation.