Factors Influencing Implementation of the Commission on Cancer's Breast Synoptic Operative Report (Alliance A20_Pilot9).

BACKGROUND: The technical aspects of cancer surgery have a significant impact on patient outcomes. To monitor surgical quality, in 2020, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) revised its accreditation standards for cancer surgery and introduced the synoptic operative reports (SORs). The standardization of SORs holds promise, but successful implementation requires strategies to address key implementation barriers. This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementing breast SOR within diverse CoC-accredited programs. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 health care professionals across diverse CoC-accredited sites. The study used two comprehensive implementation frameworks to guide data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Successful SOR implementation was impeded by disrupted workflows, surgeon resistance to change, low prioritization of resources, and poor flow of information despite CoC's positive reputation. Participants often lacked understanding of the requirements and timeline for breast SOR and were heavily influenced by prior experiences with templates and SOR champion relationships. The perceived lack of monetary benefits (to obtaining CoC accreditation) together with the significant information technology (IT) resource requirements tempered some of the enthusiasm. Additionally, resource constraints and the redirection of personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic were noted as hurdles. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon behavior and workflow change, IT and personnel resources, and communication and networking strategies influenced SOR implementation. During early implementation and the implementation planning phase, the primary focus was on achieving buy-in and initiating successful roll-out rather than effective use or sustainment. These findings have implications for enhancing standardization of surgical cancer care and guidance of future strategies to optimize implementation of CoC accreditation standards.

Optimizing process flow diagrams to guide implementation of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in new settings.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess acceptability of using process flow diagrams (or process maps) depicting a previously implemented evidence-based intervention (EBI) to inform the implementation of similar interventions in new settings. METHODS: We developed three different versions of process maps, each visualizing the implementation of the same multicomponent colorectal cancer (CRC) screening EBI in community health centers but including varying levels of detail about how it was implemented. Interviews with community health professionals and practitioners at other sites not affiliated with this intervention were conducted. We assessed their preferences related to the map designs, their potential utility for guiding EBI implementation, and the feasibility of implementing a similar intervention in their local setting given the information available in the process maps. RESULTS: Eleven community health representatives were interviewed. Participants were able to understand how the intervention was implemented and engage in discussions around the feasibility of implementing this type of complex intervention in their local system. Potential uses of the maps for supporting implementation included staff training, role delineation, monitoring and quality control, and adapting the components and implementation activities of the existing intervention. CONCLUSION: Process maps can potentially support decision-making about the adoption, implementation, and adaptation of existing EBIs in new contexts. Given the complexities involved in deciding whether and how to implement EBIs, these diagrams serve as visual, easily understood tools to inform potential future adopters of the EBI about the activities, resources, and staffing needed for implementation.

Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions.

PURPOSE: We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool's potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants' preferences regarding the tool's design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool. RESULTS: Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool's utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs. CONCLUSION: Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool's utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.

The special sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 years of lessons learned in developing the evidence base, building community capacity, and translating research into practice.

PURPOSE: The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members. METHODS: We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation. RESULTS: Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN's success-in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci-is attributable to: (1) its people-the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change. CONCLUSION: CPCRN's history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems.

An implementation science approach to the systematic study of access to gynecologic cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Barriers to access to cancer care are profoundly threatening to patients with gynecologic malignancies. Implementation science focuses on empirical investigation of factors influencing delivery of clinical best practices, as well as interventions designed to improve delivery of evidence-based care. We outline one prominent framework for conducting implementation research and discuss its application to improving access to gynecologic cancer care. METHODS: Literature on the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was reviewed. Delivery of cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma was selected as an illustrative case of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) in gynecologic oncology. CFIR domains were applied to the context of cytoreductive surgical care, highlighting examples of empirically-assessable determinants of care delivery. RESULTS: CFIR domains include Innovation, Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Individuals, and Implementation Process. "Innovation" relates to characteristics of the surgical intervention itself; "Inner Setting" relates to the environment in which surgery is delivered. "Outer Setting" refers to the broader care environment influencing the Inner Setting. "Individuals" highlights attributes of persons directly involved in care delivery, and "Implementation Process" focuses on integration of the Innovation within the Inner Setting. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritization of implementation science methods in the study of access to gynecologic cancer care will help ensure that patients are able to utilize interventions with the greatest prospect of benefiting them.

Intervening in the Cancer Care System: An Analysis of Equity-Focused Nurse Navigation and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Nurse navigation can improve quality of cancer care and reduce racial disparities in care outcomes. Addressing persistent structurally-rooted disparities requires research on strategies that support patients by prompting structural changes to systems of care. We applied a novel conceptualization of social support to an analysis of racial equity-focused navigation and patient-reported outcomes. METHOD: We applied an antiracism lens to create a theory-informed definition of system-facing social support: intervening in a care system on a patient's behalf. Participants were adults with early-stage breast or lung cancer, who racially identified as Black or White, and received specialized nurse navigation (n = 155). We coded navigators' clinical notes (n = 3,251) to identify instances of system-facing support. We then estimated models to examine system-facing support in relation to race, perceived racism in health care settings, and mental health. RESULTS: Twelve percent of navigators' clinical notes documented system-facing support. Black participants received more system-facing support than White participants, on average (b = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.25, 1.31]). The interaction of race*system-facing support was significant in a model predicting perceived racism in health care settings at the end of the study controlling for baseline scores (b = 0.05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.09]). Trends in simple slopes indicated that among Black participants, more system-facing support was associated with slightly more perceived racism; no association among White participants. DISCUSSION: The term system-facing support highlights navigators' role in advocating for patients within the care system. More research is needed to validate the construct system-facing support and examine its utility in interventions to advance health care equity.

Understanding the multilevel determinants of clinicians' imaging decision-making: setting the stage for de-implementation of low-value imaging.

BACKGROUND: De-implementation requires understanding and targeting multilevel determinants of low-value care. The objective of this study was to identify multilevel determinants of imaging for prostate cancer (PCa) and asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH), two common urologic conditions that have contributed substantially to the annual spending on unnecessary imaging in the US. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed-methods approach involving survey and interview data. Using a survey, we asked 33 clinicians (55% response-rate) to indicate their imaging approach to 8 clinical vignettes designed to elicit responses that would demonstrate guideline-concordant/discordant imaging practices for patients with PCa or AMH. A subset of survey respondents (N = 7) participated in semi-structured interviews guided by a combination of two frameworks that offered a comprehensive understanding of multilevel determinants. We analyzed the interviews using a directed content analysis approach and identified subthemes to better understand the differences and similarities in the imaging determinants across two clinical conditions. RESULTS: Survey results showed that the majority of clinicians chose guideline-concordant imaging behaviors for PCa; guideline-concordant imaging intentions were more varied for AMH. Interview results informed what influenced imaging decisions and provided additional context to the varying intentions for AMH. Five subthemes touching on multiple levels were identified from the interviews: National Guidelines, Supporting Evidence and Information Exchange, Organization of the Imaging Pathways, Patients' Clinical and Other Risk Factors, and Clinicians' Beliefs and Experiences Regarding Imaging. Imaging decisions for both PCa and AMH were often driven by national guidelines from major professional societies. However, when clinicians felt guidelines were inadequate, they reported that their decision-making was influenced by their knowledge of recent scientific evidence, past clinical experiences, and the anticipated benefits of imaging (or not imaging) to both the patient and the clinician. In particular, clinicians referred to patients' anxiety and uncertainty or patients' clinical factors. For AMH patients, clinicians additionally expressed concerns regarding legal liability risk. CONCLUSION: Our study identified comprehensive multilevel determinants of imaging to inform development of de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value imaging, which we found useful for identifying determinants of de-implementation. De-implementation interventions should be tailored to address the contextual determinants that are specific to each clinical condition.

An actionable needs assessment for adolescents and young adults with cancer: the AYA Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB).

PURPOSE: In the USA, many of the nearly 90,000 adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer each year do not receive services to address the full scope of needs they experience during and after cancer treatment. To facilitate a systematic and patient-centered approach to delivering services to address the unmet needs of AYAs with cancer, we developed the AYA Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB). METHODS: To develop NA-SB, we leveraged user-centered design, an iterative process for intervention development based on prospective user (i.e., provider and AYA) engagement. Specifically, we conducted usability testing and concept mapping to refine an existing tool-the Cancer Needs Questionnaire-Young People-to promote its usability and usefulness in routine cancer practice. RESULTS: Our user-centered design process yielded a need assessment which assesses AYAs' physical, psychosocial, and practical needs. Importantly, needs in the assessment are grouped by services expected to address them, creating an intuitive and actionable link between needs and services. CONCLUSION: NA-SB has the potential to improve care coordination at the individual level by allowing cancer care programs to tailor service delivery and resource provision to the individual needs of AYAs they serve.

The micropolitics of implementation; a qualitative study exploring the impact of power, authority, and influence when implementing change in healthcare teams.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organisations are complex social entities, comprising of multiple stakeholders with differing priorities, roles, and expectations about how care should be delivered. To reach agreement among these diverse interest groups and achieve safe, cost-effective patient care, healthcare staff must navigate the micropolitical context of the health service. Micropolitics in this study refers to the use of power, authority, and influence to affect team goals, vision, and decision-making processes. Although these concepts are influential when cultivating change, there is a dearth of literature examining the mechanisms through which micropolitics influences implementation processes among teams. This paper addresses this gap by exploring the role of power, authority, and influence when implementing a collective leadership intervention in two multidisciplinary healthcare teams. METHODS: The multiple case study design adopted employed a triangulation of qualitative research methods. Over thirty hours of observations (Case A = 16, Case B = 15) and twenty-five interviews (Case A = 13, Case B = 12) were completed. An in-depth thematic analysis of the data using an inductive coding approach was completed to understand the mechanisms through which contextual factors influenced implementation success. A context coding framework was also employed throughout implementation to succinctly collate the data into a visual display and to provide a high-level overview of implementation effect (i.e. the positive, neutral, or negative impact of contextual determinants on implementation). RESULTS: The findings emphasised that implementing change in healthcare teams is an inherently political process influenced by prevailing power structures. Two key themes were generated which revealed the dynamic role of these concepts throughout implementation: 1) Exerting hierarchical influence for implementation; and 2) Traditional power structures constraining implementation. Gaining support across multiple levels of leadership was influential to implementation success as the influence exercised by these individuals persuaded follower engagement. However, the historical dynamics of each team determined how this influence was exerted and perceived, which negatively impacted some participants' experiences of the implementation process. CONCLUSION: To date, micropolitics has received scant attention in implementation science literature. This study introduces the micropolitical concepts of power, authority and influence as essential contextual determinants and outlines the mechanisms through which these concepts influence implementation processes.

Characteristics of successful changes in health care organizations: an interview study with physicians, registered nurses and assistant nurses.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations are constantly changing as a result of technological advancements, ageing populations, changing disease patterns, new discoveries for the treatment of diseases and political reforms and policy initiatives. Changes can be challenging because they contradict humans' basic need for a stable environment. The present study poses the question: what characterizes successful organizational changes in health care? The aim was to investigate the characteristics of changes of relevance for the work of health care professionals that they deemed successful. METHODS: The study was based on semi-structured interviews with 30 health care professionals: 11 physicians, 12 registered nurses and seven assistant nurses employed in the Swedish health care system. An inductive approach was applied using questions based on the existing literature on organizational change and change responses. The questions concerned the interviewees' experiences and perceptions of any changes that they considered to have affected their work, regardless of whether these changes were "objectively" large or small changes. The interviewees' responses were analysed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: The analysis yielded three categories concerning characteristics of successful changes: having the opportunity to influence the change; being prepared for the change; valuing the change. The interviewees emphasized the importance of having the opportunity to influence the organizational changes that are implemented. Changes that were initiated by the professionals themselves were considered the easiest and were rarely resisted. Changes that were clearly communicated to allow for preparation increased the chances for success. The interviewees did not support organizational changes that were perceived to be implemented unexpectedly and/or without prior communication. They conveyed that it was important for them to understand the need for and benefits of organizational changes. They particularly valued and perceived as successful organizational changes with a patient focus, with clear benefits to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational changes in health care are more likely to succeed when health care professionals have the opportunity to influence the change, feel prepared for the change and recognize the value of the change, including perceiving the benefit of the change for patients.

Advancing the use of organization theory in implementation science.

Healthcare settings and systems have been slow to adopt and implement many effective cancer prevention and control interventions. Understanding the factors that determine successful implementation is essential to accelerating the translation of effective interventions into practice. Many scholars have studied the determinants of implementation, and much of this research has been guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR categorizes implementation determinants at five levels (characteristics of the intervention, inner setting, individual, processes, and outer setting). Of these five levels, determinants at the level of the outer setting are the least developed. Extensive research in fields other than healthcare suggest that determinants at the level of the outer setting (e.g., funding streams, contracting practices, and public policy) play a central role in shaping when and how an organization implements new structures and practices. Thus, a more comprehensive understanding of outer-setting determinants is critical to efforts to accelerate the implementation of effective cancer control interventions. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) created a cross-center workgroup to review organizational theories and begin to contribute to the creation of a future framework of constructs related to outer setting determinants. In this paper, we report findings from the review of three organizational theories: Institutional Theory, Transaction Cost Economics, and Contingency Theory. To demonstrate the applicability of this work to implementation science and practice, we have applied findings to three case studies of CPCRN researchers' efforts to implement colorectal cancer screening interventions in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Correction to: Survivorship Care Plan Implementation in US Cancer Programs: a National Survey of Cancer Care Providers.

The original version of this article contained an error. Citation 17 in the original publication referenced the wrong article.

Survivorship Care Plan Implementation in US Cancer Programs: a National Survey of Cancer Care Providers.

Survivorship care plans (SCPs)-documents intended to improve care for cancer survivors who have completed active treatment-are required, yet implementation is poor. We sought to understand SCP implementation in cancer programs in the USA with the objective of identifying opportunities for improvement. We recruited cancer care providers in the USA via several cancer care networks to participate in a survey regarding SCP implementation. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. Three hundred ninety-five providers from diverse cancer programs in 47 states and Washington, DC responded to the survey. The timing of SCP implementation varied across and within cancer programs, with approximately 40% of respondents reporting developing SCPs more than 3 months after primary treatment or adjuvant therapy completion. Nurse navigators were responsible for 48-58% of each stage of SCP implementation. Processes that could have been automated often occurred in-person or via phone and vice versa. Respondents reported spending more than 2 h per SCP to complete all stages of implementation, of which less than a third was reimbursed by third-party payers. We identified several opportunities for improving SCP implementation, including broadening the base of responsibility, optimizing modes of communication, decreasing the time required and increasing the funding available, and limiting variation in SCP implementation across and within cancer programs. Future work should assess the influence of approaches to SCP implementation on desired outcomes.

The influence of formal and informal policies and practices on health care innovation implementation: A mixed-methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: The implementation science literature has contributed important insights regarding the influence of formal policies and practices on health care innovation implementation, whereas informal implementation policies and practices have garnered little attention. The broader literature suggests that informal implementation policies and practices could also influence innovation use. PURPOSE: We used the Organizational Theory of Innovation Implementation to further understand the role of formal and informal implementation policies and practices as determinants of implementation effectiveness. We examined their role within the context of initiatives to increase palliative care consultation in inpatient oncology. METHODS: We used a case study design in two organizational settings within one academic medical center: medical and gynecologic oncology. We completed semistructured interviews with medical (n = 12) and gynecologic (n = 10) oncology clinicians using questions based on organizational theory. Quantitative data assessed implementation effectiveness, defined as aggregated palliative care consult rates within oncology services from 2010 to 2016. Four palliative care clinicians were interviewed to gain additional implementation context insights. RESULTS: Medical oncology employed multiple formal policies and practices including training and clinician prompting to support palliative care consultation and a top-down approach, yet most clinicians were unaware of the policies and practices, contributing to a weak implementation climate. In contrast, gynecologic oncology employed one formal policy (written guideline of criteria for initiating a consult) but also relied on informal policies and practices, such as spontaneous feedback and communication; they adopted a bottom-up approach, contributing to broader clinician awareness and strong implementation climate. Both services exhibited variable, increasing consult rates over time. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Informal policies and practices may compensate or substitute for formal policies and practices under certain conditions (e.g., smaller health care organizations). Further research is needed to investigate the role of formal and informal policies and practices in shaping a strong and sustainable implementation climate and subsequent effective innovation implementation.

Survivorship Care Planning: Why Is It Taking So Long?

Survivorship care planning is a process that focuses on the transition from active cancer treatment to a coordinated and comprehensive care system to address patients' unique needs. Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are increasingly viewed as a key component of survivorship care planning. SCPs have been recommended for >10 years to promote care coordination, communication, and record-keeping efficiency; however, SCP implementation has been challenging. We elaborate on the challenges of SCP implementation, summarize evidence regarding potential methods of promoting SCP implementation, and describe a research agenda for generating more definitive evidence to support SCP implementation in practice.

Tracking implementation strategies: a description of a practical approach and early findings.

BACKGROUND: Published descriptions of implementation strategies often lack precision and consistency, limiting replicability and slowing accumulation of knowledge. Recent publication guidelines for implementation strategies call for improved description of the activities, dose, rationale and expected outcome(s) of strategies. However, capturing implementation strategies with this level of detail can be challenging, as responsibility for implementation is often diffuse and strategies may be flexibly applied as barriers and challenges emerge. We describe and demonstrate the development and application of a practical approach to identifying implementation strategies used in research and practice that could be used to guide their description and specification. METHODS: An approach to tracking implementation strategies using activity logs completed by project personnel was developed to facilitate identification of discrete strategies. This approach was piloted in the context of a multi-component project to improve children's access to behavioural health services in a county-based child welfare agency. Key project personnel completed monthly activity logs that gathered data on strategies used over 17 months. Logs collected information about implementation activities, intent, duration and individuals involved. Using a consensus approach, two sets of coders categorised each activity based upon Powell et al.'s (Med Care Res Rev 69:123-57, 2012) taxonomy of implementation strategies. RESULTS: Participants reported on 473 activities, which represent 45 unique strategies. Initial implementation was characterised by planning strategies followed by educational strategies. After project launch, quality management strategies predominated, suggesting a progression of implementation over time. Together, these strategies accounted for 1594 person-hours, many of which were reported by the leadership team that was responsible for project design, implementation and oversight. CONCLUSIONS: This approach allows for identifying discrete implementation strategies used over time, estimating dose, describing temporal ordering of implementation strategies, and pinpointing the major implementation actors. This detail could facilitate clear reporting of a full range of implementation strategies, including those that may be less observable. This approach could lead to a more nuanced understanding of what it takes to implement different innovations, the types of strategies that are most useful during specific phases of implementation, and how implementation strategies need to be adaptively applied throughout the course of a given initiative.

The Relationship Between Cancer Survivors' Socioeconomic Status and Reports of Follow-up Care Discussions with Providers.

Socioeconomically disadvantaged cancer survivors are less likely to have adequate follow-up care. In this study, we examined whether socioeconomically disadvantaged survivors are at risk for not having follow-up care discussions with providers, a critical determinant of access to follow-up care and desirable health outcomes. Using the 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement, we used a binary logit model with sample weights to examine associations between 1320 cancer survivors' socioeconomic status (SES) and reports of follow-up care discussions with providers, controlling for clinical and demographic characteristics. The multivariable model indicated survivors with incomes ≤200 % Federal Poverty Level (FPL) had a lower probability of reporting a follow-up care discussion than survivors with incomes >400 % FPL (p < 0.05). Survivors with less than high school education had a lower probability of reporting a discussion than survivors who had a college education or greater (p < 0.05). However, even after controlling for income, survivors with financial hardship had a greater probability of reporting a discussion than survivors with no financial hardship (p < 0.05). Insurance status was not a significant predictor of reporting a discussion (p > 0.05). Socioeconomically disadvantaged cancer survivors are at risk for not having follow-up care discussions with providers, particularly those who report lower income and education. The development of educational interventions targeting provider communication with socioeconomically disadvantaged cancer survivors, and survivors' understanding of the benefits of follow-up care discussions, may promote access to these services. Future research assessing mechanisms underlying relationships between survivors' SES indicators and reports of follow-up care discussions with providers is also warranted.

Summing it up: an integrative review of studies of cancer survivorship care plans (2006-2013).

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine recommended that cancer survivors who are completing primary treatment receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) based on face validity. The state of scientific knowledge regarding the SCP is unclear. The authors conducted an integrative review of existing evidence regarding SCPs. The MEDLINE/PubMed database, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database were searched for relevant studies published between 2006 and 2013 using a combination of keywords: "survivors," "survivorship," "care plans," "care planning," "treatment summaries," and "cancer." Articles were included if they 1) reported results from an empirical study, 2) included cancer survivors who were diagnosed at age ≥ 18 years, 3) related to SCP, and 4) were published in English. In total, 781 records were retrieved; 77 were identified as duplicates, and 665 were abstracts or presentations that did not relate to SCPs for adults or were not empirical, which left 42 articles for inclusion in this review. Studies regarding SCP fell into 3 categories: 1) content (n=14), 2) dissemination and implementation (n=14), and 3) survivor and provider outcomes (n=14). SCPs have been endorsed and are associated with improved knowledge, but SCP use remains sporadic. Only 4 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that avoided many biases associated with observational studies. Other limitations included cross-sectional or pre-SCP-post-SCP ("pre-post") designs, limited generalizability caused by a lack of sample diversity, and a lack of systematic testing of data-collection tools. The quantity and quality of SCP research are limited. SCPs have been endorsed, but evidence of improved outcomes associated with SCP is limited. Future research that addresses the methodological concerns of extant studies is needed regarding SCP use, content, and outcomes.

From strategy to action: how top managers' support increases middle managers' commitment to innovation implementation in health care organizations.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that top managers' support influences middle managers' commitment to innovation implementation. What remains unclear is how top managers' support influences middle managers' commitment. Results may be used to improve dismal rates of innovation implementation. METHODS: We used a mixed-method sequential design. We surveyed (n = 120) and interviewed (n = 16) middle managers implementing an innovation intended to reduce health disparities in 120 U.S. health centers to assess whether top managers' support directly influences middle managers' commitment; by allocating implementation policies and practices; or by moderating the influence of implementation policies and practices on middle managers' commitment. For quantitative analyses, multivariable regression assessed direct and moderated effects; a mediation model assessed mediating effects. We used template analysis to assess qualitative data. FINDINGS: We found support for each hypothesized relationship: Results suggest that top managers increase middle managers' commitment by directly conveying to middle managers that innovation implementation is an organizational priority (ß = 0.37, p = .09); allocating implementation policies and practices including performance reviews, human resources, training, and funding (bootstrapped estimate for performance reviews = 0.09; 95% confidence interval [0.03, 0.17]); and encouraging middle managers to leverage performance reviews and human resources to achieve innovation implementation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Top managers can demonstrate their support directly by conveying to middle managers that an initiative is an organizational priority, allocating implementation policies and practices such as human resources and funding to facilitate innovation implementation, and convincing middle managers that innovation implementation is possible using available implementation policies and practices. Middle managers may maximize the influence of top managers' support on their commitment by communicating with top managers about what kind of support would be most effective in increasing their commitment to innovation implementation.