Examining readiness for implementing practice changes in federally qualified health centers: A rapid qualitative study.

Implementing evidence-based interventions remains slow in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). The purpose of this study is to qualitatively examine the R = MC2 (Readiness = motivation × innovation specific capacity × general capacity) heuristic subcomponents in the context of implementing general and colorectal cancer screening (CRCS)-related practice changes in FQHCs. We conducted 17 interviews with FQHC employees to examine (1) experiences with successful or unsuccessful practice change efforts, (2) using approaches to promote CRCS, and (3) opinions about R = MC2 subcomponents. We conducted a rapid qualitative analysis to examine the frequency, depth, and spontaneity of subcomponents. Priority, compatibility, observability (motivation), intra- and interorganizational relationships (innovation-specific capacity), and organizational structure and resource utilization (general capacity) emerged as highly relevant. For example, organizational structure was described as related to an organization's open communication during meetings to help with scheduling procedures. The results contribute to understanding organizational readiness in the FQHC setting and can be helpful when identifying and prioritizing barriers and facilitators that affect implementation.

Using cognitive interviews to improve a measure of organizational readiness for implementation.

BACKGROUND: Organizational readiness is a key factor for successful implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), but a valid and reliable measure to assess readiness across contexts and settings is needed. The R = MC2 heuristic posits that organizational readiness stems from an organization's motivation, capacity to implement a specific innovation, and its general capacity. This paper describes a process used to examine the face and content validity of items in a readiness survey developed to assess organizational readiness (based on R = MC2) among federally qualified health centers (FQHC) implementing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) EBIs. METHODS: We conducted 20 cognitive interviews with FQHC staff (clinical and non-clinical) in South Carolina and Texas. Participants were provided a subset of items from the readiness survey to review. A semi-structured interview guide was developed to elicit feedback from participants using "think aloud" and probing techniques. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling approach and interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom and WebEx. Participants were asked 1) about the relevancy of items, 2) how they interpreted the meaning of items or specific terms, 3) to identify items that were difficult to understand, and 4) how items could be improved. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in ATLAS.ti. Findings were used to revise the readiness survey. RESULTS: Key recommendations included reducing the survey length and removing redundant or difficult to understand items. Additionally, participants recommended using consistent terms throughout (e.g., other units/teams vs. departments) the survey and changing pronouns (e.g., people, we) to be more specific (e.g., leadership, staff). Moreover, participants recommended specifying ambiguous terms (e.g., define what "better" means). CONCLUSION: Use of cognitive interviews allowed for an engaged process to refine an existing measure of readiness. The improved and finalized readiness survey can be used to support and improve implementation of CRCS EBIs in the clinic setting and thus reduce the cancer burden and cancer-related health disparities.

A Proactive, Systematic Approach to Building the Capacity of Technical Assistance Providers.

Technical assistance (TA) is a major capacity building strategy used by the government sector to promote health outcomes in the United States. However, there is minimal literature about how to develop TA provider capacities. This article describes a systematic and proactive approach for developing TA provider capacity, referred to as Technical Assistance for Technical Assistance Providers (TAFTAP), which draws on three implementation science frameworks (Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, Getting To Outcomes, and R = MC2). We present an application of TAFTAP within a federal agency providing a readiness-informed TA approach to health departments of states, territories, and tribal areas implementing comprehensive tobacco prevention control programs. Pilot data suggest that TAFTAP is a promising approach for improving the quality of TA delivery. At the end of the 2-year project period, TAFTAP recipients provided generally positive qualitative feedback about the support they received. They chose to sustain the readiness-informed TA by incorporating it into a future funding announcement. Downstream state-level TA grantee recipients reported positive outcomes (e.g., accelerated progress, enjoying more one-on-one time with TA providers) from receiving the TA innovation from TAFTAP recipients. We suggest that funding agencies and training and TA centers consider this approach to bolster the capacity and motivation of TA providers for downstream benefit to health and human services staff and their clients. Practical steps for employing TAFTAP to advance health outcomes are included in this article.

Development of a comprehensive measure of organizational readiness (motivation × capacity) for implementation: a study protocol.

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 = MC2 heuristic (readiness = motivation × innovation-specific capacity × general capacity). 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.

Advances in bridging research and practice: introduction to the second special issue on the interactive system framework for dissemination and implementation.

The need for new ways to bridge the gap between research and practice is clear; the use of evidence-based prevention programs and implementation with fidelity in practice are strikingly limited. The Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF) was created to help bridge research and practice by specifying the systems and processes required to support dissemination and implementation of evidence-based programs, processes, practices, and policies. The ISF identifies three key systems necessary for this process which include the Synthesis and Translation System, the Support System, and the Delivery System. The ISF was featured in a special issue of the American Journal of Community Psychology in 2008. This special issue extends that work by including both researchers who have applied an ISF lens to aspects of their current work and researchers who have proactively applied the ISF in a process that goes across the various systems of the ISF, i.e., Synthesis and Translation, Support, and Delivery. Content areas include: children's mental health, teen pregnancy prevention, HIV prevention, violence prevention, heart disease and stroke prevention, breast cancer prevention, and substance abuse prevention. In this introductory article, we provide a brief description of the history of the ISF and a summary of the articles in the special issue.