Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

PurposeWe assessed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) uptake following a mailed FIT intervention among 45–49-year-olds newly eligible for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening based on 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations. We also tested the effect of an enhanced versus plain mailing envelope on FIT uptake.MethodsIn February 2022 we mailed FITs to eligible 45–49-year-olds at one Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinic. We determined the proportion who completed FITs within 60 days. We also conducted a nested randomized trial comparing uptake using an enhanced envelope (padded with tracking label and colored messaging sticker) versus plain envelope. Finally, we determined the change in CRC screening by any modality (e.g., FIT, colonoscopy) among all clinic patients in this age group (i.e., clinic-level screening) between baseline and 6 months post-intervention.ResultsWe mailed FITs to 316 patients. Sample characteristics: 57% female, 58% non-Hispanic Black, and 50% commercially insured. Overall, 54/316 (17.1%) returned a FIT within 60 days, including 34/158 (21.5%) patients in the enhanced envelope arm versus 20/158 (12.7%) in the plain envelope arm (difference 8.9 percentage points, 95% CI: 0.6–17.2). Clinic-level screening among all 45–49-year-olds increased 16.6 percentage points (95% CI: 10.9–22.3), from 26.7% at baseline to 43.3% at 6 months.ConclusionCRC screening appeared to increase following a mailed FIT intervention among diverse FQHC patients aged 45–49. Larger studies are needed to assess acceptability and completion of CRC screening in this younger population. Visually appealing mailers may improve uptake when implementing mailed interventions.Trial registration The trial was registered on May 28, 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

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.

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.

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in response to the challenges of translating biomedical and behavioral interventions from discovery to real-world use. To address the challenge of translating evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice, the field of implementation science has emerged as a distinct discipline. With the distinction between EBI effectiveness research and implementation research comes differences in study design and methodology, shifting focus from clinical outcomes to the systems that support adoption and delivery of EBIs with fidelity. Implementation research designs share many of the foundational elements and assumptions of efficacy/effectiveness research. Designs and methods that are currently applied in implementation research include experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, simulation modeling, and configurational comparative methods. Examples of specific research designs and methods illustrate their use in implementation science. We propose that the CTSA program takes advantage of the momentum of the field's capacity building in three ways: 1) integrate state-of-the-science implementation methods and designs into its existing body of research; 2) position itself at the forefront of advancing the science of implementation science by collaborating with other NIH institutes that share the goal of advancing implementation science; and 3) provide adequate training in implementation science. As implementation methodologies mature, both implementation science and the CTSA program would greatly benefit from cross-fertilizing expertise and shared infrastructures that aim to advance healthcare in the USA and around the world.

Reflecting their commitment to advancing health equity, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) established a Health Equity Workgroup to identify and distill guiding principles rooted in health equity, community-engaged participatory research (CBPR), social determinants of health, and racial equity frameworks to guide its collective work. The Health Equity Workgroup utilized a multi-phase, participatory consensus-building approach to: (1) identify recurrent themes in health and racial equity frameworks; (2) capture perspectives on and experiences with health equity research among CPCRN members through an online survey; (3) engage in activities to discuss and refine the guiding principles; and (4) collect case examples of operationalizing equity principles in cancer research. Representatives from all CPCRN centers endorsed nine core principles to guide the Network’s strategic plan: (1) Engage in power-sharing and capacity building with partners; (2) Address community priorities through community engagement and co-creation of research; (3) Explore and address the systems and structural root causes of cancer disparities; (4) Build a system of accountability between research and community partners; (5) Establish transparent relationships with community partners; (6) Prioritize the sustainability of research benefits for community partners; (7) Center racial equity in cancer prevention and control research; (8) Engage in equitable data collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination practices; and (9) Integrate knowledge translation, implementation, and dissemination into research plans. Dissemination products, such as toolkits and technical assistance workshops, reflecting these principles will foster knowledge transfer to intentionally integrate health and racial equity principles in cancer prevention and control research.

Background Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are among the leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity in the U.S., with rates highest among birthing people who are Black, rural residents, and/or have low-income. Severe hypertension, in particular, increases risk of stroke and other serious pregnancy complications. To promote early detection and treatment of severe hypertension, the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health developed the Severe Hypertension During Pregnancy and Postpartum Period Safety Bundle (HTN Bundle). Multiple studies have demonstrated the HTN Bundle’s effectiveness in the inpatient setting. With funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, we engaged community partners to adapt the HTN Bundle for the outpatient setting (i.e., O-HTN Bundle) and planned for its implementation. In this paper, we describe the protocol for a study evaluating O-HTN Bundle implementation in 20 outpatient clinics serving Black, rural, and/or low-income populations. Methods This study is a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial with a multiple baseline design. We will implement the O-HTN Bundle in three successive cohorts of clinics using a multicomponent implementation strategy to engage community partners (coalition, patient workgroup) and support clinics (training, facilitation, education materials, and simulations of severe hypertension events). To test the strategy, we will compare clinic fidelity to evidence-based guidelines for (a) patient education on hypertension and (b) blood pressure measurement technique, with repeated measures occurring before and after strategy receipt. We will also observe strategy effects on community- and clinic-level intermediate outcomes (community engagement, organizational readiness), implementation outcomes (reach, adoption, fidelity, maintenance), and effectiveness outcomes (receipt of guideline concordant care). Analyses will address whether outcomes are equitable across Black, rural, and/or low-income subgroups. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2.0, we will use mixed methods to identify adaptations and other determinants of implementation success. Discussion This study integrates community engagement and implementation science to promote equitable and timely response to severe HTN in the outpatient setting during pregnancy and postpartum. This is one of the first studies to implement an outpatient HTN Bundle and to use simulation as a strategy to reinforce team-based delivery of guideline concordant care. Trial registration This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as “Testing Implementation Strategies to Support Clinic Fidelity to an Outpatient Hypertension Bundle (AC 3 HIEVE).” Registration number NCT06002165, August 21, 2023: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06002165 .

Background The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lists 32 grade A or B recommended preventive services for non-pregnant United States (US) adults, including colorectal cancer screening (CRC). Little guidance is given on how to implement these services with consistency and fidelity in primary care. Given limited patient visit time and competing demands, primary care providers (PCPs) tend to prioritize a small subset of these recommendations. Completion rates of some of these services, including CRC screening, are suboptimal. Expanding delivery of preventive services to other healthcare providers, where possible, can improve access and uptake, particularly in medically underserved areas or populations. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (at-home, stool-based testing) for CRC screening can be distributed and resulted without PCP involvement. Pharmacists have long delivered preventive services (e.g., influenza vaccination) and may be a good option for expanding CRC screening delivery using FIT, but it is not clear how PCPs would perceive this expansion. Methods We used semi-structured interviews with PCPs in North Carolina and Washington state to assess perceptions and recommendations for a potential pharmacy-based FIT distribution program (PharmFIT™). Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to elucidate potential multi-level facilitators of and barriers to implementation of PharmFIT™. Results We completed 30 interviews with PCPs in North Carolina (N = 12) and Washington state (N = 18). PCPs in both states were largely accepting of PharmFIT™, with several important considerations. First, PCPs felt that pharmacists should receive appropriate training for identifying patients eligible and due for FIT screening. Second, a clear understanding of responsibility for tracking tests, communication, and, particularly, follow-up of positive test results should be established and followed. Finally, clear electronic workflows should be established for relay of test result information between the pharmacy and the primary care clinic. Conclusion If the conditions are met regarding pharmacist training, follow-up for positive FITs, and transfer of documentation, PCPs are likely to support PharmFIT™ as a way for their patients to obtain and complete CRC screening using FIT.

Background In several recent articles, authors have called for aligning the fields of implementation and improvement science. In this paper, we call for implementation science to also align with improvement practice . Multiple implementation scholars have highlighted the importance of designing implementation strategies to fit the existing culture, infrastructure, and practice of a healthcare system. Worldwide, healthcare systems are adopting improvement models as their primary approach to improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. The prevalence of improvement models raises the question of how implementation scientists might best align their efforts with healthcare systems’ existing improvement infrastructure and practice. Main body We describe three challenges and five benefits to aligning implementation science and improvement practice. Challenges include (1) use of different models, terminology, and methods, (2) a focus on generalizable versus local knowledge, and (3) limited evidence in support of the effectiveness of improvement tools and methods. We contend that implementation science needs to move beyond these challenges and work toward greater alignment with improvement practice. Aligning with improvement practice would benefit implementation science by (1) strengthening research/practice partnerships, (2) fostering local ownership of implementation, (3) generating practice-based evidence, (4) developing context-specific implementation strategies, and (5) building practice-level capacity to implement interventions and improve care. Each of these potential benefits is illustrated in a case study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network. Conclusion To effectively integrate evidence-based interventions into routine practice, implementation scientists need to align their efforts with the improvement culture and practice that is driving change within healthcare systems worldwide. This paper provides concrete examples of how researchers have aligned implementation science with improvement practice across five implementation projects.

This paper describes the development and initial implementation of the Compendium of D&I Catalogs, a tool created by a Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium working group to streamline navigation of the proliferating online resources, catalogs and interactive tools designed to guide application of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science. The Compendium is a curated, dynamically-updated list of 35 D&I resource catalogs organized into eight categories: comprehensive resources; frameworks, theories, and models; methods and measures; funding; practitioner resources; training; CTSA infrastructure; health equity. Eight CTSA hubs volunteered to serve as “early adopters” for the tool and completed an evaluation of its initial implementation. Among these “early adopters,” half had implemented the Compendium within their websites, describing the web implementation process as “easy.” Remaining “early adopter” respondents cited institutional web development capacity concerns and competing priorities as reasons for delayed implementation. All respondents valued the Compendium’s dynamic updates. Among implementing sites, roughly two-thirds directly embedded the Compendium into their institutional websites, with the others providing a link to the Compendium. For CTSAs striving to meet the rising demand for D&I expertise and resources, the Compendium of D&I Catalogs represents a simple, low-cost tool to enhance accessibility of D&I capacity-building resources.