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.

Background Numerous agencies are providing training, technical assistance, and other support to build community-based practitioners’ capacity to adopt and implement evidence-based prevention interventions. Yet, little is known about how best to design capacity-building interventions to optimize their effectiveness. Wandersman et al. (Am J Community Psychol.50:445–59, 2102) proposed the Evidence - Based System of Innovation Support (EBSIS) as a framework to guide research and thereby strengthen the evidence base for building practitioners’ capacity. The purpose of this review was to contribute to further development of the EBSIS by systematically reviewing empirical studies of capacity-building interventions to identify (1) the range of strategies used, (2) variations in the way they were structured, and (3) evidence for their effectiveness at increasing practitioners’ capacity to use evidence-based prevention interventions. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for English-language articles reporting findings of empirical studies of capacity-building interventions that were published between January 2000 and January 2014 and were intended to increase use of evidence-based prevention interventions in non-clinical settings. To maximize review data, studies were not excluded a priori based on design or methodological quality. Using the EBSIS as a guide, two researchers independently extracted data from included studies. Vote counting and meta-summary methods were used to summarize findings. Results The review included 42 publications reporting findings from 29 studies. In addition to confirming the strategies and structures described in the EBSIS, the review identified two new strategies and two variations in structure. Capacity-building interventions were found to be effective at increasing practitioners’ adoption ( n = 10 of 12 studies) and implementation ( n = 9 of 10 studies) of evidence-based interventions. Findings were mixed for interventions’ effects on practitioners’ capacity or intervention planning behaviors. Both the type and structure of capacity-building strategies may have influenced effectiveness. The review also identified contextual factors that may require variations in the ways capacity-building interventions are designed. Conclusions Based on review findings, refinements are suggested to the EBSIS. The refined framework moves the field towards a more comprehensive and standardized approach to conceptualizing the types and structures of capacity-building strategies. This standardization will assist with synthesizing findings across studies and guide capacity-building practice and research.

An individual or organization that sets out to implement an innovation (e.g., a new technology, program, or policy) generally requires support. In the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, a Support System should work with Delivery Systems (national, state and/or local entities such as health and human service organizations, community-based organizations, schools) to enhance their capacity for quality implementation of innovations. The literature on the Support ystem has been under-researched and under-developed. This article begins to conceptualize theory, research, and action for an evidence-based system for innovation support (EBSIS). EBSIS describes key priorities for strengthening the science and practice of support. The major goal of EBSIS is to enhance the research and practice of support in order to build capacity in the Delivery System for implementing innovations with quality, and thereby, help the Delivery System achieve outcomes. EBSIS is guided by a logic model that includes four key support components: tools, training, technical assistance, and quality assurance/quality improvement . EBSIS uses the Getting To Outcomes approach to accountability to aid the identification and synthesis of concepts, tools, and evidence for support. We conclude with some discussion of the current status of EBSIS and possible next steps, including the development of collaborative researcher-practitioner-funder-consumer partnerships to accelerate accumulation of knowledge on the Support System.

Background The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) develops tools to support implementation of evidence-based interventions for school health. To advance understanding of factors influencing the use of these implementation tools, we conducted an evaluation of state, school district, and local school staffs’ use of four CDC tools to support implementation of physical activity, nutrition, health education, and parent engagement. Two frameworks guided the evaluation: Interactive Systems Framework (ISF) for Dissemination and Implementation and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Methods The evaluation applied a mixed methods, cross-sectional design that included online surveys ( n  = 69 state staff from 43 states), phone interviews ( n  = 13 state staff from 6 states), and in-person interviews ( n  = 90 district and school staff from 8 districts in 5 states). Descriptive analyses were applied to surveys and content analysis to interviews. Results The survey found that the majority of state staff surveyed was aware of three of the CDC tools but most were knowledgeable and confident in their ability to use only two. These same two tools were the ones for which states were most likely to have provided training and technical assistance in the past year. Interviews provided insight into how tools were used and why use varied, with themes organized within the ISF domain “support strategies” (e.g., training, technical assistance) and four CFIR domains: (1) characteristics of tools, (2) inner setting, (3) outer setting, and (4) individuals. Overall, tools were valued for the credibility of their source (CDC) and evidence strength and quality. Respondents reported that tools were too complex for use by school staff. However, if tools were adaptable and compatible with inner and outer setting factors, state and district staff were willing and able to adapt tools for school use. Conclusions Implementation tools are essential to supporting broad-scale implementation of evidence-based interventions. This study illustrates how CFIR and ISF might be applied to evaluate factors influencing tools’ use and provides recommendations for designing tools to fit within the multi-tiered systems involved in promoting, supporting, and implementing evidence-based interventions in schools. Findings have relevance for the design of implementation tools for use by other multi-tiered systems.

Low-resource clinical settings often face obstacles that challenge the implementation of recommended evidence-based practices (EBPs). Implementation science approaches are useful in identifying barriers and developing strategies to address them. Ridge Regional Hospital (RRH), a tertiary referral hospital in Accra, Ghana experienced a spike in rates of neonatal sepsis and launched a quality improvement (QI) initiative that identified poor adherence to hand hygiene in the neonatal intensive care unit as a potential source of infections. A multi-modal change package of World Health Organization-recommended solutions was created to address this issue. To ensure that the outputs of the QI effort were adopted within the organization, leaders at RRH and Kybele, Inc. used an implementation science framework called the 'Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation' (ISF) to create a package of locally acceptable implementation strategies. The ISF has never been used before to guide implementation in low-resource settings. Hand hygiene compliance rose from 67% to 92% overall, including a 36% increase during the night shifts-a group of healthcare workers with typically very low levels of compliance. The drastic improvement in adherence to hand hygiene suggests the potential value of the joint use of QI and implementation science to promote the creation and application of contextually appropriate EBPs in low-resource settings. Our results also suggest that using an implementation framework such as the ISF could rapidly increase the uptake of other evidence-based interventions in low-resource settings.

Background Over 5000 community anti-drug coalitions operating in the USA serve as a cornerstone of federal drug prevention. These coalitions, however, have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing substance use only when they use technical assistance (TA) and implement evidence-based programs (EBPs). The absence of TA and EBP implementation by coalitions is a key research-to-practice gap. The Coalition Check-Up TA system is designed to fill this gap by supporting community coalition implementation of EBPs. Existing TA models for evidence-based coalition approaches are resource intensive and coalition model specific. The Coalition Check-Up is a lower cost strategy that works with a variety of types of coalitions to support sustainable implementation of EBPs. This study protocol describes a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial applying Wandersman’s Interactive Systems Framework to test the effects of the Coalition Check-Up on coalition EBP implementation capacity and outcomes. The Interactive Systems Framework outlines how the prevention support system—especially TA—bolsters EBP dissemination and implementation. Methods Using a cluster randomized controlled design, this trial will test the overall effectiveness of the Coalition Check-Up, including how it contributes to EBP implementation and prevention of youth substance use. The first aim is to estimate the impact of the Coalition Check-Up on coalitions’ capacity to do their work. We will recruit 68 anti-drug coalitions for random assignment to the Coalition Check-Up or “TA as usual” condition. We will evaluate whether the Coalition Check-Up improves coalition capacity using measures of coalition member responses about team processes, coalition network composition, and collaborative structure. Our second aim is to estimate the impact of the Coalition Check-Up on implementation of EBPs, and our third aim is to estimate the impact of the Coalition Check-Up on youth substance use. Discussion This project will clarify how the Coalition Check-Up, a scalable approach to TA due to its low cost, affects coalition capacity to support EBP implementation. Analyses also provide insight into causal pathways from the prevention support system to the prevention delivery system outlined by the Interactive Systems Framework. Results will build the evidence-base for how to support community coalitions’ sustainable implementation of evidence-based prevention programs and policies. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT04592120 . Registered on October 19, 2020.

Reduction of cancer-related disparities requires strategies that link medically underserved communities to preventive care. In this community-based participatory research project, a public library system brought together stakeholders to plan and undertake programs to address cancer screening and risk behavior. This study was implemented over 48 months in 20 large urban neighborhoods, selected to reach diverse communities disconnected from care. In each neighborhood, Cancer Action Councils were organized to conduct a comprehensive dynamic trial, an iterative process of program planning, implementation and evaluation. This process was phased into neighborhoods in random, stepped-wedge sequence. Population-level outcomes included self-reported screening adherence and smoking cessation, based on street intercept interviews. Event-history regressions (n = 9374) demonstrated that adherence outcomes were associated with program implementation, as were mediators such as awareness of screening programs and cancer information seeking. Findings varied by ethnicity, and were strongest among respondents born outside the U.S. or least engaged in care. This intervention impacted health behavior in diverse, underserved and vulnerable neighborhoods. It has been sustained as a routine library system program for several years after conclusion of grant support. In sum, participatory research with the public library system offers a flexible, scalable approach to reduce cancer health disparities.

While the number and scope of evidence-based health, education, and mental health services continues to grow, the movement of these practices into schools and other practice settings remains a complex and haphazard process. The purpose of this paper is to describe and present initial support for a prevention support system designed to promote high-quality implementation of whole school prevention initiatives in elementary and middle schools. The function and strategies of a school-based prevention support system are discussed, including key structures and activities undertaken to identify, select, and provide technical assistance to school personnel. Data collected over a 5 year period are presented, including evidence of successful implementation support for 5 different evidence-based programs implemented with fidelity at 12 schools and preliminary evidence of goal attainment. Findings suggest the ongoing collection of information related to organizational readiness assists in the adoption and implementation of effective practices and initiatives and provide valuable insight into the development of results-oriented approaches to prevention service delivery. Problems, progress, and lessons learned through this process are discussed to frame future research and action steps for this school-based prevention support system.

According to the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, implementation is a major mechanism and concern in bridging research and practice. The growing number of implementation frameworks need to be synthesized and translated so that the science and practice of quality implementation can be furthered. In this article, we: (1) use the synthesis of frameworks developed by Meyers et al. (Am J Commun Psychol, 2012 ) and translate the results into a practical implementation science tool to use for improving quality of implementation (i.e., the Quality Implementation Tool; QIT), and (2) present some of the benefits and limitations of the tool by describing how the QIT was implemented in two different pilot projects. We discuss how the QIT can be used to guide collaborative planning, monitoring, and evaluation of how an innovation is implemented.

Background Organizational readiness is important for the implementation of evidence-based interventions. Currently, there is a critical need for a comprehensive, valid, reliable, and pragmatic measure of organizational readiness that can be used throughout the implementation process. This study aims to develop a readiness measure that can be used to support implementation in two critical public health settings: federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and schools. The measure is informed by the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation and R = MC 2 heuristic ( r eadiness = m otivation × innovation-specific c apacity × general c apacity). The study aims are to adapt and further develop the readiness measure in FQHCs implementing evidence-based interventions for colorectal cancer screening, to test the validity and reliability of the developed readiness measure in FQHCs, and to adapt and assess the usability and validity of the readiness measure in schools implementing a nutrition-based program. Methods For aim 1, we will conduct a series of qualitative interviews to adapt the readiness measure for use in FQHCs. We will then distribute the readiness measure to a developmental sample of 100 health center sites (up to 10 staff members per site). We will use a multilevel factor analysis approach to refine the readiness measure. For aim 2, we will distribute the measure to a different sample of 100 health center sites. We will use multilevel confirmatory factor analysis models to examine the structural validity. We will also conduct tests for scale reliability, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability. For aim 3, we will use a qualitative approach to adapt the measure for use in schools and conduct reliability and validity tests similar to what is described in aim 2. Discussion This study will rigorously develop a readiness measure that will be applicable across two settings: FQHCs and schools. Information gained from the readiness measure can inform planning and implementation efforts by identifying priority areas. These priority areas can inform the selection and tailoring of support strategies that can be used throughout the implementation process to further improve implementation efforts and, in turn, program effectiveness.