Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions.

BACKGROUND: A fundamental challenge of implementation is identifying contextual determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and determining which implementation strategies will address them. Numerous conceptual frameworks (e.g., the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; CFIR) have been developed to guide the identification of contextual determinants, and compilations of implementation strategies (e.g., the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation; ERIC) have been developed which can support selection and reporting of implementation strategies. The aim of this study was to identify which ERIC implementation strategies would best address specific CFIR-based contextual barriers. METHODS: Implementation researchers and practitioners were recruited to participate in an online series of tasks involving matching specific ERIC implementation strategies to specific implementation barriers. Participants were presented with brief descriptions of barriers based on CFIR construct definitions. They were asked to rank up to seven implementation strategies that would best address each barrier. Barriers were presented in a random order, and participants had the option to respond to the barrier or skip to another barrier. Participants were also asked about considerations that most influenced their choices. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-five invitations were emailed and 169 (39%) individuals participated. Respondents had considerable heterogeneity in opinions regarding which ERIC strategies best addressed each CFIR barrier. Across the 39 CFIR barriers, an average of 47 different ERIC strategies (SD = 4.8, range 35 to 55) was endorsed at least once for each, as being one of seven strategies that would best address the barrier. A tool was developed that allows users to specify high-priority CFIR-based barriers and receive a prioritized list of strategies based on endorsements provided by participants. CONCLUSIONS: The wide heterogeneity of endorsements obtained in this study's task suggests that there are relatively few consistent relationships between CFIR-based barriers and ERIC implementation strategies. Despite this heterogeneity, a tool aggregating endorsements across multiple barriers can support taking a structured approach to consider a broad range of strategies given those barriers. This study's results point to the need for a more detailed evaluation of the underlying determinants of barriers and how these determinants are addressed by strategies as part of the implementation planning process.

A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

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).

Effects of cell-phone and text-message distractions on true and false recognition.

This study examined the effects of electronic communication distractions, including cell-phone and texting demands, on true and false recognition, specifically semantically related words presented and not presented on a computer screen. Participants were presented with 24 Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) lists while manipulating the concurrent presence or absence of cell-phone and text-message distractions during study. In the DRM paradigm, participants study lists of semantically related words (e.g., mother, crib, and diaper) linked to a non-presented critical lure (e.g., baby). After studying the lists of words, participants are then requested to recall or recognize previously presented words. Participants often not only demonstrate high remembrance for presented words (true memory: crib), but also recollection for non-presented words (false memory: baby). In the present study, true memory was highest when participants were not presented with any distraction tasks during study of DRM words, but poorer when they were required to complete a cell-phone conversation or text-message task during study. False recognition measures did not statistically vary across distraction conditions. Signal detection analyses showed that participants better discriminated true targets (list items presented during study) from true target controls (items presented during study only) when cell-phone or text-message distractions were absent than when they were present. Response bias did not vary significantly across distraction conditions, as there were no differences in the likelihood that a participant would claim an item as "old" (previously presented) rather than "new" (not previously presented). Results of this study are examined with respect to both activation monitoring and fuzzy trace theories.