Vaccine communication training using the Brief Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunization intervention: A PRISM implementation evaluation.

Improving clinician-patient communication can increase uptake of recommended vaccinations during pregnancy. To evaluate adaptations to and pragmatism of the brief Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunizations (MI4MI) intervention and to use the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) to describe context and implementation outcomes among clinician and staff participants. We incorporated data from study team members, clinicians and staff participants, pregnant patients at participating clinics, and patient medical records. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using surveys, chart reviews, study team notes, interviews, and focus groups. Adaptations were evaluated using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (FRAME) and pragmatism was measured with PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2). MI4MI was effective at improving participants' vaccine communication experiences. Adoption was limited by our recruitment approach. MI4MI implementation was shaped by contextual factors and associated adaptations related to the COVID pandemic and clinic and participant characteristics. Virtual asynchronous intervention delivery had mixed effects on adoption and implementation that varied across clinics and participants. Participants expressed interest in maintaining the MI4MI intervention moving forward; however, identification of sustainability infrastructure was limited. MI4MI was evaluated to be relatively pragmatic. Contextual factors strongly shaped implementation of MI4MI. Future iterations of MI4MI should include training delivery modes and incentives that accommodate a range of participants across job roles and organizational settings. Future studies including control clinics are needed to measure effectiveness for increasing vaccination and comparing virtual versus hybrid implementation strategies.

We studied a training program called Brief Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunizations (MI4MI). This program tried to teach doctors and other healthcare workers how to talk with pregnant people about vaccines. We looked at how this training program worked in different clinics. We talked with and gave surveys to the healthcare workers and patients at clinics who participated in this program. Healthcare workers who completed the MI4MI program had better experiences talking about vaccines after the training. This study happened during the early COVID pandemic, so training was done online. Healthcare workers and clinics had mixed responses to the online training approach. COVID made it hard for some people to participate. Many people who did the training said they would like to keep using the MI4MI training and skills in the future. More studies are needed to learn if the MI4MI training increases vaccination rates and to look at ways to improve online training.

Leveraging artificial intelligence to advance implementation science: potential opportunities and cautions.

BACKGROUND: The field of implementation science was developed to address the significant time delay between establishing an evidence-based practice and its widespread use. Although implementation science has contributed much toward bridging this gap, the evidence-to-practice chasm remains a challenge. There are some key aspects of implementation science in which advances are needed, including speed and assessing causality and mechanisms. The increasing availability of artificial intelligence applications offers opportunities to help address specific issues faced by the field of implementation science and expand its methods. MAIN TEXT: This paper discusses the many ways artificial intelligence can address key challenges in applying implementation science methods while also considering potential pitfalls to the use of artificial intelligence. We answer the questions of "why" the field of implementation science should consider artificial intelligence, for "what" (the purpose and methods), and the "what" (consequences and challenges). We describe specific ways artificial intelligence can address implementation science challenges related to (1) speed, (2) sustainability, (3) equity, (4) generalizability, (5) assessing context and context-outcome relationships, and (6) assessing causality and mechanisms. Examples are provided from global health systems, public health, and precision health that illustrate both potential advantages and hazards of integrating artificial intelligence applications into implementation science methods. We conclude by providing recommendations and resources for implementation researchers and practitioners to leverage artificial intelligence in their work responsibly. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence holds promise to advance implementation science methods ("why") and accelerate its goals of closing the evidence-to-practice gap ("purpose"). However, evaluation of artificial intelligence's potential unintended consequences must be considered and proactively monitored. Given the technical nature of artificial intelligence applications as well as their potential impact on the field, transdisciplinary collaboration is needed and may suggest the need for a subset of implementation scientists cross-trained in both fields to ensure artificial intelligence is used optimally and ethically.

Designing for dissemination among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA.

Introduction: The slow adoption of evidence-based interventions reflects gaps in effective dissemination of research evidence. Existing studies examining designing for dissemination (D4D), a process that ensures interventions and implementation strategies consider adopters' contexts, have focused primarily on researchers, with limited perspectives of practitioners. To address these gaps, this study examined D4D practice among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among public health and primary care practitioners in April to June 2022 (analyzed in July 2022 to December 2022). Both groups were recruited through national-level rosters. The survey was informed by previous D4D studies and pretested using cognitive interviewing. Results: Among 577 respondents, 45% were public health and 55% primary care practitioners, with an overall survey response rate of 5.5%. The most commonly ranked sources of research evidence were email announcements for public health practitioners (43.7%) and reading academic journals for clinical practitioners (37.9%). Practitioners used research findings to promote health equity (67%) and evaluate programs/services (66%). A higher proportion of clinical compared to public health practitioners strongly agreed/agreed that within their work setting they had adequate financial resources (36% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) and adequate staffing (36% vs. 24%, p = 0.001) to implement research findings. Only 20% of all practitioners reported having a designated individual or team responsible for finding and disseminating research evidence. Conclusions: Addressing both individual and modifiable barriers, including organizational capacity to access and use research evidence, may better align the efforts of researchers with priorities and resources of practitioners.

Aligning the planning, development, and implementation of complex interventions to local contexts with an equity focus: application of the PRISM/RE-AIM Framework.

For the fields of implementation science and health equity, understanding and being responsive to local contexts is of utmost importance to better inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of healthcare and public health interventions to increase their uptake and sustainment. Contexts are multi-level and include political, historical, economic, and social factors that influence health, as well as organizational characteristics, reflecting the richness of members' views, resources, values, and needs. Poor alignment between solutions and those contextual characteristics could have an impact on inequities. The PRISM (Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model) is a context-based implementation science framework that incorporates RE-AIM outcomes (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) and offers guidance to researchers, practitioners, and their patient and community partners on how to conceptualize, assess, and address contextual domains with a focus on health equity. Drawing from systems thinking, participatory engagement, and health equity principles, this commentary expands on previous work to 1) offer a novel perspective on how to align an intervention's core functions and forms with the PRISM's contextual domains, and 2) foster an ongoing and iterative engagement process with diverse partners throughout the research and practice process using a co-creation approach. We recommend intervention-to-context alignment through iterative cycles. To that end, we present the RE-AIM Framework's 'outcomes cascade' to illustrate touch points of opportunity and gaps within and across each of the five RE-AIM outcomes to illustrate 'where things go wrong'. We present a case study to illustrate and offer recommendations for research and practice efforts to increase contextual responsiveness, and enhance alignment with context before, during, and after implementation efforts and to ensure equity is being addressed. We strive to make a conceptual contribution to advance the field of pragmatic research and implementation of evidence-based practices through the application of the contextually-based PRISM framework with a focus on health equity.

Implementation science for cancer control: One center's experience addressing context, adaptation, equity, and sustainment.

Implementation science (IS) has great potential to enhance the frequency, speed, and quality of the translation of evidence-based programs, policies, products, and guidelines into practice. Progress has been made, but with some notable exceptions, this promise has not been achieved for cancer prevention and control. We discuss five interrelated but conceptually distinct, crosscutting issues important to accelerate IS for cancer prevention and control and how our Colorado Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control (COISC3) addressed these issues. These needs and opportunities include more fully addressing changing, multi-level context; guiding rapid, iterative adaptations; evaluating innovative approaches to engagement and health equity; greater attention to costs and economic issues; and sustainability. We summarize conceptual issues; evaluation needs and capacity building activities and then provide examples of how our IS center addressed these five needs for cancer prevention and control. We discuss changes made to address priorities of (i) guiding adaptations of implementation strategies to address changing context and (ii) working on issues identified and prioritized by our primary care partners rather than the research team. We conclude with discussion of lessons learned, limitations, and directions for future research and practice in IS to enhance cancer prevention and control as well as translational behavioral medicine more generally.

Implementation science (IS) has made advances in translating research to practice but has not achieved the initial promise for cancer prevention and control (CPC). We discuss five crosscutting issues to enhance CPC that implementation and behavioral science are well positioned to address. These include more fully addressing changing, multi-level context; guiding rapid, iterative program adaptations; innovative approaches to engagement and health equity; greater attention to costs and economic issues; and sustainability. We then detail changes made in our research approach from studying specific interventions and strategies from the research literature to working on issues identified and prioritized by our primary care partners. In summary, progress in achieving lasting equitable improvements in health and healthcare will be greatly aided by use of flexible, accessible conceptual models, and approaches that help guide collaborators to design and adapt programs. We conclude with discussion of lessons learned, limitations, and directions for future research and practice of translational behavioral medicine.

RE-AIM implementation outcomes and service outcomes: what's the connection? results of a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science and health services outcomes research each focus on many constructs that are likely interrelated. Both fields would be informed by increased understanding of these relationships. However, there has been little to no investigation of the relationships between implementation outcomes and service outcomes, despite general acknowledgement that both types of outcomes are important in the pathway to individual and population health outcomes. Given the lack of objective data about the links between implementation and service outcomes, an initial step in elucidating these relationships is to assess perceptions of these relationships among researchers and practitioners in relevant fields. The purpose of this paper is to assess perceived relationships between Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework outcomes and service outcomes, testing five a priori hypotheses about which perceived relationships may be strongest. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to a convenience sample of implementation scientists, health services researchers, and public health and medical practitioners from a variety of settings. Respondents provided information on their discipline, training, practice and research settings, and levels of experience in health service outcomes research, implementation science, and the RE-AIM framework. Next, they rated perceived relationships between RE-AIM and service outcomes. Repeated measures analysis of variance were used to test a priori hypotheses. Exploratory analyses assessed potential differences in mean ratings across groups of respondents categorized by discipline, setting, and levels of implementation science, health services, and RE-AIM experience. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 259 respondents, most of whom were employed in academic and medical settings. The majority were doctoral-level researchers and educators or physicians. Reported levels of experience with implementation research, health services research, and the RE-AIM framework varied. The strongest perceived relationships overall were between Implementation/Fidelity and Effectiveness (as a service outcome); Maintenance and Efficiency; Reach and Equity; Adoption and Equity; Implementation/Adaptation and Patient-Centeredness; Adoption and Patient-Centeredness; and Implementation/Fidelity and Safety. All but one of the a priori hypotheses were supported. No significant differences in ratings of perceived relationships were observed among subgroups of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This study is an initial step in developing conceptual understanding of the links between implementation outcomes, health services outcomes, and health outcomes. Our findings on perceived relationships between RE-AIM and services outcomes suggest some areas of focus and identify several areas for future research to advance both implementation science and health services research toward common goals of improving health outcomes.

Sustained Effect of Clinical Decision Support for Heart Failure: A Natural Experiment Using Implementation Science.

OBJECTIVES: In a randomized controlled trial, we found that applying implementation science (IS) methods and best practices in clinical decision support (CDS) design to create a locally customized, "enhanced" CDS significantly improved evidence-based prescribing of ß blockers (BB) for heart failure compared with an unmodified commercially available CDS. At trial conclusion, the enhanced CDS was expanded to all sites. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the real-world sustained effect of the enhanced CDS compared with the commercial CDS. METHODS: In this natural experiment of 28 primary care clinics, we compared clinics exposed to the commercial CDS (preperiod) to clinics exposed to the enhanced CDS (both periods). The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of alerts resulting in a BB prescription. Secondary outcomes included patient reach and clinician adoption (dismissals). RESULTS: There were 367 alerts for 183 unique patients and 171 unique clinicians (pre: March 2019-August 2019; post: October 2019-March 2020). The enhanced CDS increased prescribing by 26.1% compared with the commercial (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.0-35.1%), which is consistent with the 24% increase in the previous study. The odds of adopting the enhanced CDS was 81% compared with 29% with the commercial (odds ratio: 4.17, 95% CI: 1.96-8.85). The enhanced CDS adoption and effectiveness rates were 62 and 14% in the preperiod and 92 and 10% in the postperiod. CONCLUSION: Applying IS methods with CDS best practices was associated with improved and sustained clinician adoption and effectiveness compared with a commercially available CDS tool.

A Multi-Method Study of Patient Reach and Attendance in a Pragmatic Trial of Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments.

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an evidence-based approach to diabetes care in primary care settings, yet practices can struggle to ensure participation, especially among racial and ethnic minority and low-income patients. We conducted a multimethod evaluation of reach and attendance in the Invested in Diabetes study of the comparative effectiveness of two SMA delivery models (standardized and patient-driven) in two practice settings (federally qualified health centers [FQHCs] and clinics serving more commercially insured patients). Through this study, 22 practices reached 6.2% of patients with diabetes through SMAs over 3 years, with good attendance for both practice types and both SMA delivery models. FQHCs were especially successful at enrolling underserved populations and improved attendance with virtual SMAs.

The iPRISM webtool: an interactive tool to pragmatically guide the iterative use of the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model in public health and clinical settings.

BACKGROUND: To increase uptake of implementation science (IS) methods by researchers and implementers, many have called for ways to make it more accessible and intuitive. The purpose of this paper is to describe the iPRISM webtool (Iterative, Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model) and how this interactive tool operationalizes PRISM to assess and guide a program's (a) alignment with context, (b) progress on pragmatic outcomes, (c) potential adaptations, and (d) future sustainability across the stages of the implementation lifecycle. METHODS: We used an iterative human-centered design process to develop the iPRISM webtool. RESULTS: We conducted user-testing with 28 potential individual and team-based users who were English and Spanish speaking from diverse settings in various stages of implementing different types of programs. Users provided input on all aspects of the webtool including its purpose, content, assessment items, visual feedback displays, navigation, and potential application. Participants generally expressed interest in using the webtool and high likelihood of recommending it to others. The iPRISM webtool guides English and Spanish-speaking users through the process of iteratively applying PRISM across the lifecycle of a program to facilitate systematic assessment and alignment with context. The webtool summarizes assessment responses in graphical and tabular displays and then guides users to develop feasible and impactful adaptations and corresponding action plans. Equity considerations are integrated throughout. CONCLUSIONS: The iPRISM webtool can intuitively guide individuals and teams from diverse settings through the process of using IS methods to iteratively assess and adapt different types of programs to align with the context across the implementation lifecycle. Future research and application will continue to develop and evaluate this IS resource.

Participatory logic modeling in a multi-site initiative to advance implementation science.

BACKGROUND: Logic models map the short-term and long-term outcomes that are expected to occur with a program, and thus are an essential tool for evaluation. Funding agencies, especially in the United States (US), have encouraged the use of logic models among their grantees. They also use logic models to clarify expectations for their own funding initiatives. It is increasingly recognized that logic models should be developed through a participatory approach which allows input from those who carry out the program being evaluated. While there are many positive examples of participatory logic modeling, funders have generally not engaged grantees in developing the logic model associated with their own initiatives. This article describes an instance where a US funder of a multi-site initiative fully engaged the funded organizations in developing the initiative logic model. The focus of the case study is Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3), a multi-year initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute. METHODS: The reflective case study was collectively constructed by representatives of the seven centers funded under ISC3. Members of the Cross-Center Evaluation (CCE) Work Group jointly articulated the process through which the logic model was developed and refined. Individual Work Group members contributed descriptions of how their respective centers reviewed and used the logic model. Cross-cutting themes and lessons emerged through CCE Work Group meetings and the writing process. RESULTS: The initial logic model for ISC3 changed in significant ways as a result of the input of the funded groups. Authentic participation in the development of the logic model led to strong buy-in among the centers, as evidenced by their utilization. The centers shifted both their evaluation design and their programmatic strategy to better accommodate the expectations reflected in the initiative logic model. CONCLUSIONS: The ISC3 case study demonstrates how participatory logic modeling can be mutually beneficial to funders, grantees and evaluators of multi-site initiatives. Funded groups have important insights about what is feasible and what will be required to achieve the initiative's stated objectives. They can also help identify the contextual factors that either inhibit or facilitate success, which can then be incorporated into both the logic model and the evaluation design. In addition, when grantees co-develop the logic model, they have a better understanding and appreciation of the funder's expectations and thus are better positioned to meet those expectations.

Participatory Logic Modeling in a Multi-Site Initiative to Advance Implementation Science.

Background: It is increasingly being recognized that logic models should be developed through a participatory approach which allows input from those who carry out the program being evaluated. While there are many positive examples of participatory logic modeling, funders have generally not used this approach in the context of multi-site initiatives. This article describes an instance where the funder and evaluator of a multi-site initiative fully engaged the funded organizations in developing the initiative logic model. The focus of the case study is Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC 3 ), a multi-year initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Methods: The case study was collectively constructed by representatives of the seven centers funded under ISC 3 . Members of the Cross-Center Evaluation (CCE) Work Group jointly articulated the process through which the logic model was developed and refined. Individual Work Group members contributed descriptions of how their respective centers reviewed and used the logic model. Cross-cutting themes and lessons emerged through CCE Work Group meetings and the writing process. Results: The initial logic model for ISC 3 changed in significant ways as a result of the input of the funded groups. Authentic participation in the development of the logic model led to strong buy-in among the centers, as evidenced by their utilization. The centers shifted both their evaluation design and their programmatic strategy to better accommodate the expectations reflected in the initiative logic model. Conclusions: The ISC 3 case study provides a positive example of how participatory logic modeling can be mutually beneficial to funders, grantees and evaluators of multi-site initiatives. Funded groups have important insights about what is feasible and what will be required to achieve the initiative's stated objectives. They can also help identify the contextual factors that either inhibit or facilitate success, which can then be incorporated into both the logic model and the evaluation design. In addition, when grantees co-develop the logic model, they have a better understanding and appreciation of the funder's expectations, and thus are better positioned to meet those expectations.

Strategies to Bridge Equitable Implementation of Telehealth.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid scaling of telehealth limited the extent to which proactive planning for equitable implementation was possible. The deployment of telehealth will persist in the postpandemic era, given patient preferences, advances in technologies, growing acceptance of telehealth, and the potential to overcome barriers to serve populations with limited access to high-quality in-person care. However, aspects and unintended consequences of telehealth may leave some groups underserved or unserved, and corrective implementation plans that address equitable access will be needed. The purposes of this paper are to (1) describe equitable implementation in telehealth and (2) integrate an equity lens into actionable equitable implementation.

Applying an equity lens to assess context and implementation in public health and health services research and practice using the PRISM framework.

Dissemination and implementation science seeks to enhance the uptake, successful implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based programs and policies. While a focus on health equity is implicit in many efforts to increase access to and coverage of evidence-based programs and policies, most implementation frameworks and models do not explicitly address it. Disparities may in fact be increased by emphasizing high intensity interventions or ease of delivery over meeting need within the population, addressing deep-rooted structural inequities, and adapting to local context and priorities. PRISM (Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model), the contextual expansion of the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework has several elements that address health equity, but these have not been explicated, integrated, or illustrated in one place. We present guidance for applying PRISM with an equity lens across its four context domains (external environment; multi-level perspectives on the intervention; characteristics of implementers and intended audience; and the implementation and sustainability infrastructure-as well as the five RE-AIM outcome dimensions. We then present an example with health equity considerations and discuss issues of representation and participation, representativeness and the importance of ongoing, iterative assessment of dynamic context and structural drivers of inequity. We also elaborate on the importance of a continuous process that requires addressing community priorities and responding to capacity and infrastructure needs and changes. We conclude with research and practice recommendations for applying PRISM with an increased emphasis on equity.

Implementation strategies preferred by primary care clinicians to facilitate cancer prevention and control activities.

Key clinical and community members need to be involved in the identification of feasible and impactful implementation strategies for translation of evidence-based interventions into practice. While a wide range of implementation strategies has been developed, there is little research on their applicability for cancer prevention and control (CPC) efforts in primary care. We conducted a survey of primary care physicians to identify implementation strategies they perceive as most feasible and impactful. The survey included both primary prevention behavior change counseling and cancer screening issues. Analyses contrasted ratings of feasibility and impact of nine implementation strategies, and among clinicians in different settings with a focus on comparisons between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural settings. We recruited a convenience sample of 326 respondents from a wide range of practice types from four practice-based research networks in 49 states and including 177 clinicians in rural settings. Ratings of impact were somewhat higher than those for feasibility. Few of the nine implementation strategies were high on both impact and feasibility. Only 'adapting to my practice' was rated higher than a 4 ("moderate") on both impact and feasibility. There were relatively few differences between rural and non-rural clinicians or associated with other clinician or setting characteristics. There is considerable variability in perceived impact and feasibility of implementation strategies for CPC activities among family medicine clinicians. It is important to assess both feasibility and impact of implementation strategies as well as their generalizability across settings. Our results suggest that optimal strategies to implement evidence-based CPC activities will likely need to be adapted for primary care settings. Future research is needed to replicate these findings and identify practical, implementation partner informed implementation strategies.

Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?

BACKGROUND: Despite lung cancer being a leading cause of death in the United States and lung cancer screening (LCS) being a recommended service, many patients eligible for screening do not receive it. Research is needed to understand the challenges with implementing LCS in different settings. This study investigated multiple practice members and patient perspectives impacting rural primary care practices related to LCS uptake by eligible patients. METHODS: This qualitative study involved primary care practice members in multiple roles (clinicians n = 9, clinical staff n = 12 and administrators n = 5) and their patients (n = 19) from 9 practices including federally qualified and rural health centers (n = 3), health system owned (n = 4) and private practices (n = 2). Interviews were conducted regarding the importance of and ability to complete the steps that may result in a patient receiving LCS. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis with immersion crystallization then organized using the RE-AIM implementation science framework to illuminate and organize implementation issues. RESULTS: Although all groups endorsed the importance of LCS, all also struggled with implementation challenges. Since assessing smoking history is part of the process to identify eligibility for LCS, we asked about these processes. We found that smoking assessment and assistance (including referral to services) were routine in the practices, but other steps in the LCS portion of determining eligibility and offering LCS were not. Lack of knowledge about screening and coverage, patient stigma, and resistance and practical considerations such as distance to LCS testing facilities complicated completion of LCS compared to screening for other types of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Limited uptake of LCS results from a range of multiple interacting factors that cumulatively affect consistency and quality of implementation at the practice level. Future research should consider team-based approaches to conduct of LCS eligibility and shared decision making.

Speeding implementation in cancer: The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control.

The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network represents a large-scale initiative to create an infrastructure to support and enable the efficient, effective, and equitable translation of approaches and evidence-based treatments to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. This Cancer MoonshotSM-funded ISC3 Network consists of 7 P50 Centers that support and advance the rapid development, testing, and refinement of innovative approaches to implement a range of evidence-based cancer control interventions. The Centers were designed to have research-practice partnerships at their core and to create the opportunity for a series of pilot studies that could explore new and sometimes risky ideas and embed in their infrastructure a 2-way engagement and collaboration essential to stimulating lasting change. ISC3 also seeks to enhance capacity of researchers, practitioners, and communities to apply implementation science approaches, methods, and measures. The Organizing Framework that guides the work of ISC3 highlights a collective set of 3 core areas of collaboration within and among Centers, including to 1) assess and incorporate dynamic, multilevel context; 2) develop and conduct rapid and responsive pilot and methods studies; and 3) build capacity for knowledge development and exchange. Core operating principles that undergird the Framework include open collaboration, consideration of the dynamic context, and engagement of multiple implementation partners to advance pragmatic methods and health equity and facilitate leadership and capacity building across implementation science and cancer control.

Psychosocial Interventions for Pain Management in Breast Cancer Survivors: A RE-AIM Evaluation.

Psychosocial interventions for breast-cancer-related pain are effective, yet over 45% of survivors continue to struggle with this often-chronic side effect. This study evaluated multilevel indicators that can influence successful translation of interventions into clinical practice. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was applied to evaluate reporting of individual and setting/staff-level intervention indicators. A systematic search and multi-step screening process identified 31 randomized controlled trials for psychosocial interventions for breast cancer-related pain. Average reporting of indicators for individual-level dimensions (Reach and Effectiveness) were 65.2% and 62.3%, respectively. Comparatively, indicators for setting/staff-level dimensions were reported at a lower average frequency (Implementation, 46.8%; Adoption, 15.2%; Maintenance, 7.7%). Low reporting of setting/staff-level dimensions suggests gaps in the sustained implementation of psychosocial interventions. Implementation science methods and frameworks could improve trial design and accelerate the translation of psychosocial interventions for breast cancer-related pain into clinical practice.