A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022.

BACKGROUND: Studies of implementation strategies range in rigor, design, and evaluated outcomes, presenting interpretation challenges for practitioners and researchers. This systematic review aimed to describe the body of research evidence testing implementation strategies across diverse settings and domains, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy to classify strategies and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to classify outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies examining implementation strategies from 2010-2022 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235592). We searched databases using terms "implementation strategy", "intervention", "bundle", "support", and their variants. We also solicited study recommendations from implementation science experts and mined existing systematic reviews. We included studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of at least one implementation strategy to improve health or health care using an outcome that could be mapped to the five evaluation dimensions of RE-AIM. Only studies meeting prespecified methodologic standards were included. We described the characteristics of studies and frequency of implementation strategy use across study arms. We also examined common strategy pairings and cooccurrence with significant outcomes. FINDINGS: Our search resulted in 16,605 studies; 129 met inclusion criteria. Studies tested an average of 6.73 strategies (0-20 range). The most assessed outcomes were Effectiveness (n=82; 64%) and Implementation (n=73; 56%). The implementation strategies most frequently occurring in the experimental arm were Distribute Educational Materials (n=99), Conduct Educational Meetings (n=96), Audit and Provide Feedback (n=76), and External Facilitation (n=59). These strategies were often used in combination. Nineteen implementation strategies were frequently tested and associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, many strategies were not tested sufficiently to draw conclusions. CONCLUSION: This review of 129 methodologically rigorous studies built upon prior implementation science data syntheses to identify implementation strategies that had been experimentally tested and summarized their impact on outcomes across diverse outcomes and clinical settings. We present recommendations for improving future similar efforts.

Getting to Fidelity: Consensus Development Process to Identify Core Activities of Implementation Facilitation.

Transferring successful implementation strategies from research to practice requires approaches for assessing fidelity to the strategy's core components. Implementation facilitation (IF) is a strategy involving an interactive process of problem-solving, enabling, and supporting individuals in efforts to implement clinical innovations that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and supportive interpersonal relationships. Because IF is a dynamic strategy involving numerous activities, our objective was to conduct a rigorous consensus development process to identify core activities for monitoring fidelity to IF when applied in clinical settings. We first conducted a scoping literature review to identify the range of activities used when IF has been applied in clinical settings, searching multiple citation databases for English-language articles including "facilitation" or other commonly-used terms for the strategy published from 1996-2015. Through multi-stage screening, 135 articles (from 94 studies) were identified for data extraction on IF activities, frequency with which IF activities were identified as 'core' by study authors, and study outcomes. From the literature review, we identified 32 distinct IF activities and developed definitions/examples for each. Next, we conducted a 3-stage, modified-Delphi expert panel consensus development process to identify core IF activities across three implementation phases (i.e., Pre-Implementation, Implementation, Sustainment). The expert panel identified 8 core activities for the Pre-Implementation Phase, 8 core activities for the Implementation Phase, and 4 core activities for the Sustainment Phase. This work provides an important foundation for developing measures/tools to assess use of core IF activities to ensure the strategy is delivered with fidelity.

Comparing the CFIR-ERIC matching tool recommendations to real-world strategy effectiveness data: a mixed-methods study in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Practical and feasible methods for matching implementation strategies to diagnosed barriers of evidence-based interventions in real-world contexts are lacking. This evaluation compared actual implementation strategies applied with those recommended by an expert opinion-based tool to improve guideline-concordant cirrhosis care in a Veterans Health Administration national learning collaborative effort. METHODS: This convergent parallel mixed-methods study aimed to (1) identify pre-implementation Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) barriers to cirrhosis care through focus groups with frontline providers, (2) generate 20 recommended strategies using focus group identified barriers entered into the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Implementation Strategy Matching Tool, (3) survey providers over two consecutive years on the actual use of 73 ERIC strategies and determine strategy effectiveness, (4) compare actual versus recommended strategy use, and (5) compare actual versus expected barriers by reverse applying the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool. RESULTS: Eighteen semi-structured focus groups were conducted with 197 providers representing 95 VA sites to identify barriers to quality improvement, including cirrhosis care complexity, clarity of national goals, and local leadership support. The CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool recommended strategies such as assessing for readiness and needs, promoting adaptability, building local groups, preparing champions, and working with opinion leaders and early adopters. Subsequent strategy surveys found that sites used the top 20 "recommended" strategies no more frequently than other strategies. However, 14 (70%) of the top recommended strategies were significantly positively associated with cirrhosis care compared to 48% of actual strategies. Reverse CFIR-ERIC matching found that the strategies most used in the first year corresponded to the following barriers: opinion leaders, access to knowledge and information, and resources. The strategies most frequently employed in the second year addressed barriers such as champions, cosmopolitanism, readiness for implementation, relative priority, and patient needs and resources. Strategies used in both years were those that addressed adaptability, trialability, and compatibility. CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to empirically evaluate the relationship between CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool recommended strategies and actual strategy selection and effectiveness in the real world. We found closer connections between recommended strategies and strategy effectiveness compared to strategy frequency, suggesting validity of barrier identification, and application of the expert-informed tool.

Unhealthy alcohol use and brief intervention rates among high and low complexity veterans seeking primary care services in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: Brief intervention (BI) is recommended for all primary care (PC) patients who screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use; however, patients with multiple chronic health conditions who are at high-risk of hospitalization (i.e., "high complexity" patients) may face disparities in receiving BIs in PC. The current study investigated whether high complexity and low complexity patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) differed regarding screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use, alcohol-use severity, and receipt of BI for those with unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS: Patients were veterans receiving PC services at the VHA in a mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The study extracted VHA administrative and clinical data for a total of 282,242 patients who had ≥1 PC visits between 1/1/2014 and 12/31/2014, during which they were screened for unhealthy alcohol use by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C). The study defined high complexity patients as those within and above the 90th percentile of risk for hospitalization per the VHA's Care Assessment Need Score. Logistic regression models assessed if being a high complexity patient was associated with screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use (AUDIT-C ≥ 5), severity of unhealthy alcohol use in those who screened positive (AUDIT-C score range 5-12), and receipt of BI in those who screened positive. RESULTS: Our sample was 94.5% male, 83% White, 13% Black, 4% other race, and 1.7% Hispanic. A total of 10,813 (3.8%) patients screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use from which we identified 569 (5.3%) high complexity and 10,128 (93.6%) low complexity patients (n = 116 removed due to missing complexity data). Relative to low complexity patients, high complexity patients were less likely to screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use (3.3% vs. 4.1%, AOR = 0.59, p < .001); however, in patients who screened positive, high complexity patients had higher AUDIT-C scores (Mean AUDIT-C = 7.75 vs. 6.87, AOR = 1.46, p < .001) and were less likely to receive a BI (78.0% vs. 92.6%, AOR = 0.42, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in BI exist for highly complex patients despite having more severe unhealthy alcohol use. Future research should examine the specific patient- and/or clinic-level factors impeding BI delivery for complex patients.

Refining Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategy surveys using cognitive interviews with frontline providers.

BACKGROUND: The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation includes 73 defined implementation strategies clustered into nine content areas. This taxonomy has been used to track implementation strategies over time using surveys. This study aimed to improve the ERIC survey using cognitive interviews with non-implementation scientist clinicians. METHODS: Starting in 2015, we developed and fielded annual ERIC surveys to evaluate liver care in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). We invited providers who had completed at least three surveys to participate in cognitive interviews (October 2020 to October 2021). Before the interviews, participants reviewed the complete 73-item ERIC survey and marked which strategies were unclear due to wording, conceptual confusion, or overlap with other strategies. They then engaged in semi-structured cognitive interviews to describe the experience of completing the survey and elaborate on which strategies required further clarification. RESULTS: Twelve VA providers completed surveys followed by cognitive interviews. The "Engage Consumer" and "Support Clinicians" clusters were rated most highly in terms of conceptual and wording clarity. In contrast, the "Financial" cluster had the most wording and conceptual confusion. The "Adapt and Tailor to Context" cluster strategies were considered to have the most redundancy. Providers outlined ways in which the strategies could be clearer in terms of wording (32%), conceptual clarity (51%), and clarifying the distinction between strategies (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive interviews with ERIC survey participants allowed us to identify and address issues with strategy wording, combine conceptually indistinct strategies, and disaggregate multi-barreled strategies. Improvements made to the ERIC survey based on these findings will ultimately assist VA and other institutions in designing, evaluating, and replicating quality improvement efforts.

Core implementation strategies for improving cirrhosis care in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides care for more than 80,000 veterans with cirrhosis. This longitudinal, multimethod evaluation of a cirrhosis care quality improvement program aimed to (1) identify implementation strategies associated with evidence-based, guideline-concordant cirrhosis care over time, and (2) use qualitative interviews to operationalize strategies for a manualized intervention. APPROACH AND RESULTS: VHA providers were surveyed annually about the use of 73 implementation strategies to improve cirrhosis care in fiscal years 2018 (FY18) and 2019 (FY19). Implementation strategies linked to guideline-concordant cirrhosis care were identified using bivariate statistics and comparative configurational methods. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 facilities in the highest quartile of cirrhosis care to specify the successful implementation strategies and their mechanisms of change. A total of 106 VHA facilities (82%) responded at least once over the 2-year period (FY18, n = 63; FY19, n = 100). Facilities reported using a median of 12 (interquartile range [IQR] 20) implementation strategies in FY18 and 10 (IQR 19) in FY19. Of the 73 strategies, 35 (48%) were positively correlated with provision of evidence-based cirrhosis care. Configurational analysis identified multiple strategy pathways directly linked to more guideline-concordant cirrhosis care. Across both methods, a subset of eight strategies was determined to be core to cirrhosis care improvement and specified using qualitative interviews. CONCLUSIONS: In a national cirrhosis care improvement initiative, a multimethod approach identified a core subset of successful implementation strategy combinations. This process of empirically identifying and specifying implementation strategies may be applicable to other implementation challenges in hepatology.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop a Novel Pain Self-Management Intervention for People with Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common among patients with cirrhosis and is challenging to treat. While promising, pain self-management (PSM) interventions have not been tailored to this population's needs. AIMS: To design a PSM intervention for patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 17 patients with cirrhosis, 12 hepatologists, and 6 administrators from two medical centers were conducted to inform a rigorous, structured intervention mapping (IM) process. Qualitative content analysis was guided by social cognitive theory (SCT) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and incorporated into intervention development. A planning group met regularly throughout the intervention, to reach consensus about how to use data and theory to develop the intervention through IM. RESULTS: Participants described barriers to PSM behaviors, including the absence of simple, evidence-based interventions for pain for patients with cirrhosis, inadequate provider knowledge, time, and training, and lack of champions, funding, and communication. Patients described high motivation to treat pain using behavioral methods including meditation, prayer, and exercise. The intervention was designed to address barriers to PSM behaviors for patients with cirrhosis, using behavior change methods that address knowledge, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. The LEAP (Liver Education About Pain) intervention is a 12-week, modular intervention delivered by phone via individual and group sessions with a health coach. CONCLUSIONS: People with cirrhosis, hepatologists, and administrators informed this theory-driven, tailored PSM intervention, which was designed to be implementable in the real world.

Veterans' experiences with and perspectives on insomnia treatment: A qualitative study.

Qualitative interviews were conducted with veterans to understand their experiences and perceptions about insomnia and its treatment, with a focus on cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) and brief behavioral treatment for insomnia (BBTI). There is a lack of knowledge about veterans' understanding of this prevalent disorder, yet their experiences and perceptions can influence treatment delivery and treatment outcomes. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can improve insomnia care by considering and responding to this valuable information from veteran stakeholders. Twenty veterans with an insomnia diagnosis or complaint were interviewed about their experiences with insomnia, its treatment, and their preferences for care. Transcripts from the audio-recorded interviews were independently analyzed by 2 coders using content analysis, and discrepancies were resolved through negotiated consensus. The 20 veterans were mostly male (85%), older (60.4 years ± 9.0), and white (60%). Experiences with insomnia and perspectives regarding treatment focused on (a) insomnia symptoms, (b) comorbid symptoms, (c) seeking treatment, (d) intervention experiences, (e) intervention preferences and expectations, and (f) patient attributes. Barriers to care included a lack of knowledge about treatment and a lack of options that fit veterans' preference for delivery. These results provide insight into veterans' experiences with and perspectives on insomnia treatment that is crucial to the support, development, and implementation of interventions. A focus on increasing knowledge of, and expectations for, insomnia treatments as well as offering multiple delivery options has the potential to improve utilization and access to quality insomnia care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Getting to implementation: Adaptation of an implementation playbook.

Introduction: Implementation strategies supporting the translation of evidence into practice need to be tailored and adapted for maximum effectiveness, yet the field of adapting implementation strategies remains nascent. We aimed to adapt "Getting To Outcomes"® (GTO), a 10-step implementation playbook designed to help community-based organizations plan and evaluate behavioral health programs, into "Getting To Implementation" (GTI) to support the selection, tailoring, and use of implementation strategies in health care settings. Methods: Our embedded evaluation team partnered with operations, external facilitators, and site implementers to employ participatory methods to co-design and adapt GTO for Veterans Health Administration (VA) outpatient cirrhosis care improvement. The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidenced-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) guided documentation and analysis of changes made pre- and post-implementation of GTI at 12 VA medical centers. Data from multiple sources (interviews, observation, content analysis, and fidelity tracking) were triangulated and analyzed using rapid techniques over a 3-year period. Results: Adaptations during pre-implementation were planned, proactive, and focused on context and content to improve acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the GTI playbook. Modifications during and after implementation were unplanned and reactive, concentrating on adoption, fidelity, and sustainability. All changes were collaboratively developed, fidelity consistent at the level of the facilitator and/or implementer. Conclusion: GTO was initially adapted to GTI to support health care teams' selection and use of implementation strategies for improving guideline-concordant medical care. GTI required ongoing modification, particularly in steps regarding team building, context assessment, strategy selection, and sustainability due to difficulties with step clarity and progression. This work also highlights the challenges in pragmatic approaches to collecting and synthesizing implementation, fidelity, and adaptation data. Trial registration: This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04178096).

Mapping the road to elimination: a 5-year evaluation of implementation strategies associated with hepatitis C treatment in the veterans health administration.

BACKGROUND: While few countries and healthcare systems are on track to meet the World Health Organization's hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination goals, the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been a leader in these efforts. We aimed to determine which implementation strategies were associated with successful national viral elimination implementation within the VHA. METHODS: We conducted a five-year, longitudinal cohort study of the VHA Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative between October 2015 and September 2019. Participants from 130 VHA medical centers treating HCV were sent annual electronic surveys about their use of 73 implementation strategies, organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Descriptive and nonparametric analyses assessed strategy use over time, strategy attribution to the HIT, and strategy associations with site HCV treatment volume and rate of adoption, following the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations. RESULTS: Between 58 and 109 medical centers provided responses in each year, including 127 (98%) responding at least once, and 54 (42%) responding in all four implementation years. A median of 13-27 strategies were endorsed per year, and 8-36 individual strategies were significantly associated with treatment volume per year. Data warehousing, tailoring, and patient-facing strategies were most commonly endorsed. One strategy-"identify early adopters to learn from their experiences"-was significantly associated with HCV treatment volume in each year. Peak implementation year was associated with revising professional roles, providing local technical assistance, using data warehousing (i.e., dashboard population management), and identifying and preparing champions. Many of the strategies were driven by a national learning collaborative, which was instrumental in successful HCV elimination. CONCLUSIONS: VHA's tremendous success in rapidly treating nearly all Veterans with HCV can provide a roadmap for other HCV elimination initiatives.

Consensus on strategies for implementing high priority mental health care practices within the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

Background: Identifying feasible and effective implementation strategies remains a significant challenge. At present, there is a gap between the number of strategies prospectively included in implementation trials, typically four or fewer, and the number of strategies utilized retrospectively, often 20 or more. This gap points to the need for developing a better understanding of the range of implementation strategies that should be considered in implementation science and practice. Methods: This study elicited expert recommendations to identify which of 73 discrete implementation strategies were considered essential for implementing three mental health care high priority practices (HPPs) in the US Department of Veterans Affairs: depression outcome monitoring in primary care mental health (n = 20), prolonged exposure therapy for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (n = 22), and metabolic safety monitoring for patients taking antipsychotic medications (n = 20). Participants had expertise in implementation science, the specific HPP, or both. A highly structured recommendation process was used to obtain recommendations for each HPP. Results: Majority consensus was identified for 26 or more strategies as absolutely essential; 53 or more strategies were identified as either likely essential or absolutely essential across the three HPPs. Conclusions: The large number of strategies identified as essential starkly contrasts with existing research that largely focuses on application of single strategies to support implementation. Systematic investigation and documentation of multi-strategy implementation initiatives is needed. Plain Language Summary: Most implementation studies focus on the impact of a relatively small number of discrete implementation strategies on the uptake of a practice. However, studies that systematically survey providers find that dozens or more discrete implementation strategies can be identified in the context of the implementation initiative. This study engaged experts in implementation science and clinical practice in a structured recommendation process to identify which of the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategies were considered absolutely essential, likely essential, likely inessential, and absolutely inessential for each of the three distinct mental health care practices: depression outcome monitoring in primary care, prolonged exposure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder, and metabolic safety monitoring for patients taking antipsychotic medications. The results highlight that experts consider a large number of strategies as absolutely or likely essential for supporting the implementation of mental health care practices. For example, 26 strategies were identified as absolutely essential for all three mental health care practices. Another 27 strategies were identified as either absolutely or likely essential across all three practices. This study points to the need for future studies to document the decision-making process an initiative undergoes to identify which strategies to include and exclude in an implementation effort. In particular, a structured approach to this documentation may be necessary to identify strategies that may be endogenous to a care setting and that may not be otherwise be identified as being "deliberately" used to support a practice or intervention.

Getting to implementation: a protocol for a Hybrid III stepped wedge cluster randomized evaluation of using data-driven implementation strategies to improve cirrhosis care for Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Cirrhosis is a rapidly increasing cause of global mortality. To improve cirrhosis care, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Hepatic Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative to support VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) to deliver evidence-based cirrhosis care. This randomized HIT program evaluation aims to develop and assess a novel approach for choosing and applying implementation strategies to improve the quality of cirrhosis care. METHODS: Evaluation aims are to (1) empirically determine which combinations of implementation strategies are associated with successful implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for Veterans with cirrhosis, (2) manualize these "data-driven" implementation strategies, and (3) assess the effectiveness of data-driven implementation strategies in increasing cirrhosis EBP uptake. Aim 1 will include an online survey of all VAMCs' use of 73 implementations strategies to improve cirrhosis care, as defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Traditional statistical as well as configurational comparative methods will both be employed to determine which combinations of implementation strategies are associated with site-level adherence to EBPs for cirrhosis. In aim 2, semi-structured interviews with high-performing VAMCs will be conducted to operationalize successful implementation strategies for cirrhosis care. These data will be used to inform the creation of a step-by-step guide to tailoring and applying the implementation strategies identified in aim 1. In aim 3, this manualized implementation intervention will be assessed using a hybrid type III stepped-wedge cluster randomized design. This evaluation will be conducted in 12 VAMCs, with four VAMCs crossing from control to intervention every 6 months, in order to assess the effectiveness of using data-driven implementation strategies to improve guideline-concordant cirrhosis care. DISCUSSION: Successful completion of this innovative evaluation will establish the feasibility of using early evaluation data to inform a manualized, user-friendly implementation intervention for VAMCs with opportunities to improve care. This evaluation will provide implementation support tools that can be applied to enhance the implementation of other evidence-based practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov ( NCT04178096 ) on 4/29/20.

Brief Behavioral Treatment for Insomnia vs. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia: Results of a Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial Among Veterans.

The goal of this study was to compare a brief behavioral treatment for insomnia (BBTI), which has fewer sessions (4), shorter duration (<30-45 minutes), and delivers treatment in-person plus phone calls to cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI), which has 5 in-person sessions. The hypothesis was BBTI would be noninferior to CBTI. The Reliable Change Index was used to establish a noninferiority margin (NIM) of 3.43, representing the maximum allowable difference between groups on the pre-post Insomnia Severity Index change (ΔISI). Sixty-three veterans with chronic insomnia were randomized to either BBTI or CBTI and veterans in both groups had significant reductions of their insomnia severity per the ISI and improved their sleep onset latency, total wake time, sleep efficiency, and sleep quality per sleep diaries. While CBTI had a larger pre-post ΔISI, this was not significantly different than ΔISI BBTI and was less than the NIM. However, the 95% confidence interval of the between group pre-post ΔISI extended beyond the NIM, and thus BBTI was inconclusively noninferior to CBTI. Limitations, such as small sample size and high rate of dropout, indicate further study is needed to compare brief, alternative yet complementary behavioral insomnia interventions to CBTI. Still, evidence-based brief and flexible treatment options will help to further enhance access to care for veterans with chronic insomnia, especially in non-mental-health settings like primary care.

Strategy Configurations Directly Linked to Higher Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Starts: An Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods.

BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cares for more patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) than any other US health care system. We tracked the implementation strategies that VA sites used to implement highly effective new treatments for HCV with the aim of uncovering how combinations of implementation strategies influenced the uptake of the HCV treatment innovation. We applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to uncover causal dependencies and identify difference-making strategy configurations, and to distinguish higher from lower HCV treating sites. METHODS: We surveyed providers to assess VA sites' use of 73 implementation strategies to promote HCV treatment in the fiscal year 2015. CCMs were used to identify strategy configurations that uniquely distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites. RESULTS: From the 73 possible implementation strategies, CCMs identified 5 distinct strategy configurations, or "solution paths." These were comprised of 10 individual strategies that collectively explained 80% of the sites with higher HCV treatment starts with 100% consistency. Using any one of the following 5 solution paths was sufficient to produce higher treatment starts: (1) technical assistance; (2) engaging in a learning collaborative AND designating leaders; (3) site visits AND outreach to patients to promote uptake and adherence; (4) developing resource sharing agreements AND an implementation blueprint; OR (5) creating new clinical teams AND sharing quality improvement knowledge with other sites AND engaging patients. There was equifinality in that the presence of any one of the 5 solution paths was sufficient for higher treatment starts. CONCLUSIONS: Five strategy configurations distinguished higher HCV from lower HCV treating sites with 100% consistency. CCMs represent a methodological advancement that can help inform high-yield implementation strategy selection and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of future implementation efforts.

Longitudinal assessment of the association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment: Year 2.

BACKGROUND: To increase the uptake of evidence-based treatments for hepatitis C (HCV), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established the Hepatitis Innovation Team (HIT) Collaborative. Teams of providers were tasked with choosing implementation strategies to improve HCV care. The aim of the current evaluation was to assess how site-level implementation strategies were associated with HCV treatment initiation and how the use of implementation strategies and their association with HCV treatment changed over time. METHODS: A key HCV provider at each VA site (N = 130) was asked in two consecutive fiscal years (FYs) to complete an online survey examining the use of 73 implementation strategies organized into nine clusters as described by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. The number of Veterans initiating treatment for HCV, or "treatment starts," at each site was captured using national data. Providers reported whether the use of each implementation strategy was due to the HIT Collaborative. RESULTS: Of 130 sites, 80 (62%) responded in Year 1 (FY15) and 105 (81%) responded in Year 2 (FY16). Respondents endorsed a median of 27 (IQR19-38) strategies in Year 2. The strategies significantly more likely to be chosen in Year 2 included tailoring strategies to deliver HCV care, promoting adaptability, sharing knowledge between sites, and using mass media. The total number of treatment starts was significantly positively correlated with total number of strategies endorsed in both years. In Years 1 and 2, respectively, 28 and 26 strategies were significantly associated with treatment starts; 12 strategies overlapped both years, 16 were unique to Year 1, and 14 were unique to Year 2. Strategies significantly associated with treatment starts shifted between Years 1 and 2. Pre-implementation strategies in the "training/educating," "interactive assistance," and "building stakeholder interrelationships" clusters were more likely to be significantly associated with treatment starts in Year 1, while strategies in the "evaluative and iterative" and "adapting and tailoring" clusters were more likely to be associated with treatment starts in Year 2. Approximately half of all strategies were attributed to the HIT Collaborative. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that measuring implementation strategies over time is a useful way to catalog implementation of an evidence-based practice over time and across settings.

A hybrid type I trial to increase Veterans' access to insomnia care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic insomnia is among the most reported complaints of Veterans and military personnel referred for mental health services. It is highly comorbid with medical and psychiatric disorders, and is associated with significantly increased healthcare utilization and costs. Evidence-based psychotherapy, namely Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBTI), is an effective treatment and recommended over prescription sleep medications. While CBTI is part of a nationwide rollout in the Veterans Health Administration to train hundreds of providers, access to treatment is still limited for many Veterans due to limited treatment availability, low patient and provider knowledge about treatment options, and Veteran barriers such as distance and travel, work schedules, and childcare. Uptake of a briefer, more primary-care-friendly treatment into routine clinical care in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care settings, where insomnia is typically first recognized and diagnosed, may effectively and efficiently increase access to effective insomnia interventions and help decrease the risks and burdens related to chronic insomnia. METHODS: This hybrid type I trial is composed of two aims. The first preliminarily tests the clinical non-inferiority of Brief Behavioral Treatment for Insomnia (BBTI) versus the current "gold standard" treatment, CBTI. The second is a qualitative needs assessment, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to identify potential factors that may affect successful implementation and integration of behavioral treatments for insomnia in the primary care setting. To identify potential implementation factors, individual interviews are conducted with the Veterans who participate in the clinical trial, as well as VA primary care providers and nursing staff. DISCUSSION: It is increasingly important to better understand barriers to, and facilitators of, implementing insomnia interventions in order to ensure that Veterans have the best access to care. Furthermore, it is important to evaluate the potential for new avenues of treatment delivery, like BBTI in the primary care setting, which can benefit Veterans who may not have adequate access to specialty mental health providers trained in CBTI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02724800 . Registered on 31 March 2016.

The association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment in a national sample.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a common and highly morbid illness. New medications that have much higher cure rates have become the new evidence-based practice in the field. Understanding the implementation of these new medications nationally provides an opportunity to advance the understanding of the role of implementation strategies in clinical outcomes on a large scale. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study defined discrete implementation strategies and clustered these strategies into groups. The present evaluation assessed the use of these strategies and clusters in the context of HCV treatment across the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration, the largest provider of HCV care nationally. METHODS: A 73-item survey was developed and sent to all VA sites treating HCV via electronic survey, to assess whether or not a site used each ERIC-defined implementation strategy related to employing the new HCV medication in 2014. VA national data regarding the number of Veterans starting on the new HCV medications at each site were collected. The associations between treatment starts and number and type of implementation strategies were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 80 (62%) sites responded. Respondents endorsed an average of 25 ± 14 strategies. The number of treatment starts was positively correlated with the total number of strategies endorsed (r = 0.43, p < 0.001). Quartile of treatment starts was significantly associated with the number of strategies endorsed (p < 0.01), with the top quartile endorsing a median of 33 strategies, compared to 15 strategies in the lowest quartile. There were significant differences in the types of strategies endorsed by sites in the highest and lowest quartiles of treatment starts. Four of the 10 top strategies for sites in the top quartile had significant correlations with treatment starts compared to only 1 of the 10 top strategies in the bottom quartile sites. Overall, only 3 of the top 15 most frequently used strategies were associated with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that sites that used a greater number of implementation strategies were able to deliver more evidence-based treatment in HCV. The current assessment also demonstrates the feasibility of electronic self-reporting to evaluate ERIC strategies on a large scale. These results provide initial evidence for the clinical relevance of the ERIC strategies in a real-world implementation setting on a large scale. This is an initial step in identifying which strategies are associated with the uptake of evidence-based practices in nationwide healthcare systems.

Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study.

BACKGROUND: Poor terminological consistency for core concepts in implementation science has been widely noted as an obstacle to effective meta-analyses. This inconsistency is also a barrier for those seeking guidance from the research literature when developing and planning implementation initiatives. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aims to address one area of terminological inconsistency: discrete implementation strategies involving one process or action used to support a practice change. The present report is on the second stage of the ERIC project that focuses on providing initial validation of the compilation of 73 implementation strategies that were identified in the first phase. FINDINGS: Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation science and clinical practice (N = 35). These key stakeholders used concept mapping sorting and rating activities to place the 73 implementation strategies into similar groups and to rate each strategy's relative importance and feasibility. Multidimensional scaling analysis provided a quantitative representation of the relationships among the strategies, all but one of which were found to be conceptually distinct from the others. Hierarchical cluster analysis supported organizing the 73 strategies into 9 categories. The ratings data reflect those strategies identified as the most important and feasible. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial validation of the implementation strategies within the ERIC compilation as being conceptually distinct. The categorization and strategy ratings of importance and feasibility may facilitate the search for, and selection of, strategies that are best suited for implementation efforts in a particular setting.

A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project.

BACKGROUND: Identifying, developing, and testing implementation strategies are important goals of implementation science. However, these efforts have been complicated by the use of inconsistent language and inadequate descriptions of implementation strategies in the literature. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aimed to refine a published compilation of implementation strategy terms and definitions by systematically gathering input from a wide range of stakeholders with expertise in implementation science and clinical practice. METHODS: Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation and clinical practice who engaged in three rounds of a modified Delphi process to generate consensus on implementation strategies and definitions. The first and second rounds involved Web-based surveys soliciting comments on implementation strategy terms and definitions. After each round, iterative refinements were made based upon participant feedback. The third round involved a live polling and consensus process via a Web-based platform and conference call. RESULTS: Participants identified substantial concerns with 31% of the terms and/or definitions and suggested five additional strategies. Seventy-five percent of definitions from the originally published compilation of strategies were retained after voting. Ultimately, the expert panel reached consensus on a final compilation of 73 implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This research advances the field by improving the conceptual clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of implementation strategies that can be used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Future phases of ERIC will focus on developing conceptually distinct categories of strategies as well as ratings for each strategy's importance and feasibility. Next, the expert panel will recommend multifaceted strategies for hypothetical yet real-world scenarios that vary by sites' endorsement of evidence-based programs and practices and the strength of contextual supports that surround the effort.

Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Identifying feasible and effective implementation strategies that are contextually appropriate is a challenge for researchers and implementers, exacerbated by the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding terms and definitions for implementation strategies, as well as a literature that provides imperfect guidance regarding how one might select strategies for a given healthcare quality improvement effort. In this study, we will engage an Expert Panel comprising implementation scientists and mental health clinical managers to: establish consensus on a common nomenclature for implementation strategy terms, definitions and categories; and develop recommendations to enhance the match between implementation strategies selected to facilitate the use of evidence-based programs and the context of certain service settings, in this case the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health services. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will use purposive sampling to recruit an Expert Panel comprising implementation science experts and VA mental health clinical managers. A novel, four-stage sequential mixed methods design will be employed. During Stage 1, the Expert Panel will participate in a modified Delphi process in which a published taxonomy of implementation strategies will be used to establish consensus on terms and definitions for implementation strategies. In Stage 2, the panelists will complete a concept mapping task, which will yield conceptually distinct categories of implementation strategies as well as ratings of the feasibility and effectiveness of each strategy. Utilizing the common nomenclature developed in Stages 1 and 2, panelists will complete an innovative menu-based choice task in Stage 3 that involves matching implementation strategies to hypothetical implementation scenarios with varying contexts. This allows for quantitative characterizations of the relative necessity of each implementation strategy for a given scenario. In Stage 4, a live web-based facilitated expert recommendation process will be employed to establish expert recommendations about which implementations strategies are essential for each phase of implementation in each scenario. DISCUSSION: Using a novel method of selecting implementation strategies for use within specific contexts, this study contributes to our understanding of implementation science and practice by sharpening conceptual distinctions among a comprehensive collection of implementation strategies.