A Systematic Review of Approaches for Continuous Quality Improvement Capacity-Building.

CONTEXT: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) has become prominent in public health settings; yet, little consolidated guidance exists for building CQI capacity of community-based organizations. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize relevant literature to identify guiding principles and core components critical to building the capacity of organizations to adopt and use CQI. DESIGN: We employed a systematic review approach to assess guiding principles and core components for CQI capacity-building as outlined in the literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies meeting the following criteria were eligible for review: (1) empirical, peer-reviewed journal article, evaluation study, review, or systematic review; (2) published in 2010 or later; and (3) capacity-building activities were described in enough detail to be replicable. Studies not including human subjects, published in a language other than English, or for which full text was not available were excluded. STUDY SELECTION: The initial return of records included 6557 articles, of which 1455 were duplicates. The research team single-screened titles and abstracts of 5102 studies, resulting in the exclusion of 4842 studies. Two hundred sixty-two studies were double-screened during full-text review, yielding a final sample of 61 studies from which data were extracted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures of interest were operationalized descriptions of guiding principles and core components of the CQI capacity-building approach. RESULTS: Results yielded articles from medical education, health care, and public health settings. Findings included guiding principles and core components of CQI capacity-building identified in current practice, as well as infrastructural and contextual elements needed to build CQI capacity. CONCLUSIONS: This consolidation of guiding principles and core components for CQI capacity-building is valuable for public health and related workforces. Despite the uneven distribution of articles from health care, medical education, and public health settings, our findings can be used to guide public health organizations in building CQI capacity in a well-informed, systematic manner.

How the experiences of implementation support recipients contribute to implementation outcomes.

Introduction: There is a growing body of literature on the activities and competencies of implementation support practitioners (ISPs) and the outcomes of engaging ISPs to support implementation efforts. However, there remains limited knowledge about the experiences of implementation support recipients who engage with ISPs and how these experiences shape the trajectory of implementation and contribute to implementation outcomes. This study aimed to extend the research on ISPs by describing the experiences of professionals who received implementation support and inform our understanding of the mechanisms by which ISPs produce behavior change and contribute to implementation outcomes. Methods: Thirteen individuals with roles in supporting implementation efforts at a private foundation participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using qualitative narrative analysis and episode profile analysis approaches. Iterative diagramming was used to visualize the pathway of experiences of implementation support recipients evidenced by the interview data. Results: The majority of recipients described how positive experiences and trusting relationships with ISPs increased acceptance of implementation science throughout the foundation and increased the perception of implementation science as both an appropriate and feasible approach for strengthening the impact of foundation strategies. As perceptions of appropriateness and feasibility increased, recipients of implementation support described increasing knowledge and application of implementation science in their funding engagements and internal foundation strategies. Finally, recipients reported that the application of implementation science across the foundation led to sustained implementation capacity and better outcomes. Discussion: The experiences of implementation support recipients described in this paper provide a source for further understanding the mechanisms of change for delivering effective implementation support leading to better implementation quality. Insights from these experiences can enhance our understanding for building implementation capacity and the rationales for evolving approaches that emphasize the dynamic, emotional, and highly relational nature of supporting others to use evidence in practice.

Developing a practice-driven research agenda in implementation science: Perspectives from experienced implementation support practitioners.

Background: Attention is being placed on the "ironic gap" or "secondary" research-to-practice gap in the field of implementation science. Among several challenges posited to exacerbate this research-to-practice gap, we call attention to one challenge in particular-the relative dearth of implementation research that is tethered intimately to the lived experiences of implementation support practitioners (ISPs). The purpose of this study is to feature a qualitative approach to engaging with highly experienced ISPs to inform the development of a practice-driven research agenda in implementation science. In general, we aim to encourage ongoing empirical inquiry that foregrounds practice-driven implementation research questions. Method: Our analytic sample was comprised of 17 professionals in different child and family service systems, each with long-term experience using implementation science frameworks to support change efforts. Data were collected via in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Our analysis followed a qualitative content analysis approach. Our focal conceptual category centered on the desired areas of future research highlighted by respondents, with subcategories reflecting subsets of related research question ideas. Results: Interviews yielded varying responses that could help shape a practice-driven research agenda for the field of implementation science. The following subcategories regarding desired areas for future research were identified in respondents' answers: (a) stakeholder engagement and developing trusting relationships, (b) evidence use, (c) workforce development, and (d) cost-effective implementation. Conclusions: There is significant promise in bringing implementation research and implementation practice together more closely and building a practice-informed research agenda to shape implementation science. Our findings point not only to valuable practice-informed gaps in the literature that could be filled by implementation researchers, but also topics for which dissemination and translation efforts may not have yielded optimal reach. We also highlight the value in ISPs bolstering their own capacity for engaging with the implementation science literature to the fullest extent possible.

In the field of implementation science, increasing attention is being placed on the "ironic gap" or "secondary" research-to-practice gap. This gap reflects a general lag or disconnect between implementation research and implementation practice, often stemming from knowledge generated by implementation research not being accessible to or applied by professionals who support implementation efforts in various service-delivery systems. Several explanations for the research-to-practice gap in implementation science have been offered in recent years; the authors highlight one notable challenge that may be exacerbating the research-to-practice gap in this field, namely that implementation research often remains disconnected from the lived experiences of implementation support practitioners. In this paper, the authors demonstrate the promise of developing a practice-drive research agenda in implementation science, with specific research question ideas offered by highly experienced implementation support practitioners. The paper concludes by expressing enthusiasm for future efforts to bring implementation research and implementation practice together more closely, empirically foreground practice-driven implementation research questions, translate and disseminate existing implementation research findings more widely, and build the capacity of implementation support practitioners to fully engage with the implementation science literature.