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

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

International Atherosclerosis Society Roadmap for Familial Hypercholesterolaemia.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH), a common monogenic disorder, is a preventable cause of premature coronary artery disease and death. Up to 35 million people worldwide have FH, but most remain undetected and undertreated. Several clinical guidelines have addressed the gaps in care of FH, but little focus has been given to implementation science and practice. The International Atherosclerosis Society (IAS) has developed an evidence-informed guidance for the detection and management of patients with FH, supplemented with implementation strategies to optimize contextual models of care. The guidance is partitioned into detection, management and implementation sections. Detection deals with screening, diagnosis, genetic testing and counselling. Management includes risk stratification, treatment of adults and children with heterozygous and homozygous FH, management of FH during pregnancy, and use of lipoprotein apheresis. Specific and general implementation strategies, guided by processes specified by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy, are provided. Core generic implementation strategies are given for improving care. Nation-specific cholesterol awareness campaigns should be utilized to promote better detection of FH. Integrated models of care should be underpinned by health policy and adapted to meet local, regional and national needs. Clinical centres of excellence are important for taking referrals from the community. General practitioners should work seamlessly with multidisciplinary teams. All health-care providers must receive training in essential skills for caring for patients and families with FH. Management should be supported by shared decision-making and service improvement driven by patient-reported outcomes. Improvements in services require sharing of existing resources that can support care. Advocacy should be utilized to ensure sustainable funding. Digital health technologies and clinical quality registries have special value. Finally, academic-service partnerships need to be developed to identify gaps in care and set priorities for research. This new IAS guidance on FH complements the recent World Heart Federation Cholesterol Roadmap.

Essential content for teaching implementation practice in healthcare: a mixed-methods study of teams offering capacity-building initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Applying the knowledge gained through implementation science can support the uptake of research evidence into practice; however, those doing and supporting implementation (implementation practitioners) may face barriers to applying implementation science in their work. One strategy to enhance individuals' and teams' ability to apply implementation science in practice is through training and professional development opportunities (capacity-building initiatives). Although there is an increasing demand for and offerings of implementation practice capacity-building initiatives, there is no universal agreement on what content should be included. In this study we aimed to explore what capacity-building developers and deliverers identify as essential training content for teaching implementation practice. METHODS: We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study with participants who had developed and/or delivered a capacity-building initiative focused on teaching implementation practice. Participants completed an online questionnaire to provide details on their capacity-building initiatives; took part in an interview or focus group to explore their questionnaire responses in depth; and offered course materials for review. We analyzed a subset of data that focused on the capacity-building initiatives' content and curriculum. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and conventional content analysis for qualitative data, with the data sets merged during the analytic phase. We presented frequency counts for each category to highlight commonalities and differences across capacity-building initiatives. RESULTS: Thirty-three individuals representing 20 capacity-building initiatives participated. Study participants identified several core content areas included in their capacity-building initiatives: (1) taking a process approach to implementation; (2) identifying and applying implementation theories, models, frameworks, and approaches; (3) learning implementation steps and skills; (4) developing relational skills. In addition, study participants described offering applied and pragmatic content (e.g., tools and resources), and tailoring and evolving the capacity-building initiative content to address emerging trends in implementation science. Study participants highlighted some challenges learners face when acquiring and applying implementation practice knowledge and skills. CONCLUSIONS: This study synthesized what experienced capacity-building initiative developers and deliverers identify as essential content for teaching implementation practice. These findings can inform the development, refinement, and delivery of capacity-building initiatives, as well as future research directions, to enhance the translation of implementation science into practice.

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

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

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

Trajectory of external implementation support activities across two states in the United States: A descriptive study.

Background: Reporting on strategies to advance implementation outcomes is imperative. The current study reports descriptive information about external implementation support (EIS) provided over 5 years to 13 regions in North Carolina and South Carolina scaling an evidence-based system of parenting and family supports. Regional support teams operating through the Implementation Capacity for Triple P (ICTP) projects employed core practice components (CPCs) for EIS as proposed by Aldridge et al. and further operationalized by members of The Impact Center at FPG Child Development Institute, UNC-Chapel Hill. Method: Practice activities associated with CPCs were developed and iteratively refined across the study period. ICTP regional support teams systematically tracked their use of CPCs and related activities following each substantive support interaction. Tracking included the duration of time a CPC was employed and the use of specific practice activities associated with that CPC. Data were aggregated by month of the relationship to account for differential start dates across regions. Results: From November 2016 through December 2021, ICTP support teams tracked 749 support interactions with Triple P regions in North Carolina and South Carolina. Monthly support decreased year over year, though dose varied considerably. Patterns of CPC use indicated a high dose of "foundational" and "co-design" CPCs early, followed by a blended and more diverse use thereafter, with some notable trends. Practice activities considered essential to influencing intended practice outcomes were characterized by higher rates of use. Like CPCs, practice activities were used dynamically across the study period. Conclusions: This descriptive study offers a case study for how EIS might be operationalized, tracked, and employed. Findings suggest several interpretations that might refine our understanding and use of EIS. Although the nature of this practical report precludes generalizability of findings, directions for future research and practice are discussed.

More needs to be known about how external support providers work with organizational, system, and community partners to improve their efforts to implement innovative programs and practices. Although a handful of models of external support have emerged in the literature, support strategies or activities are not often tracked systematically or prospectively. In the current study, we report on the adoption, operationalization, and use of a recently proposed model of external support across 13 regions in North Carolina and South Carolina scaling an evidence-based system of parenting and family interventions. Teams of external support providers tracked their activities using the model across more than 5 years. Results provide a description of what external support might look like across long-term support engagements, noting key patterns about dose of support and use of activities that might be responsible for influencing intended support outcomes. The study offers several findings that might refine our understanding and use of external support strategies. In addition, the study lays groundwork for examining additional research questions, such as the feasibility of support processes and whether and how support activities influence support outcomes.

Mechanisms of change in external implementation support: A conceptual model and case examples to guide research and practice.

Background: External implementation support (EIS) is a well-recognized feature of implementation science and practice, often under related terms such as technical assistance and implementation facilitation. Existing models of EIS have gaps related to addressing practice outcomes at both individual and organizational levels, connecting practice activities to intended outcomes, or grounding in well-established theories of behavior and organization change. Moreover, there have been calls to clarify the mechanisms of change through which EIS influences related outcomes. Method: In this article, we theorize about mechanisms of change within EIS. Our theorizing process aligns with the approach advocated by Kislov et al. We aim to consolidate prior EIS literature, combining related constructs from previous empirical and conceptual work while drawing on our extensive EIS experience to develop a higher-order, midrange theory of change. Results: Our theory of change is empirically and practically informed, conceptually situated within an established grand theory of change, and guided by eight practice principles and social cognitive theory. The theory of change proposes 10 core practice components as mechanisms of change within EIS. When used according to underlying theory and principles, they are believed to contribute to favorable practice outcomes at individual, team, organizational, and system levels. The model offers flexibility by recognizing the need for sequential support processes and the demand to practice in dynamic and responsive ways. Case examples are presented to illustrate major themes and patterns of the model in action. Conclusions: The proposed model is intended to support prospective EIS studies by conceptualizing discernable practice components with hypothesized relationships to proximal and distal practice outcomes. The model can be behaviorally operationalized to compliment and extend competency-based approaches to implementation support practitioner (ISP) training and coaching. Over time, the model should be refined based on new empirical findings and contributions from ISPs across the field.

There are few models that help us understand how external support providers work with organizational, system, and community partners to improve their efforts to implement innovative programs and practices. Existing models typically describe characteristics and features of the process but lack grounding in well-established theories of behavior and organizational change. In this paper, we theorize about mechanisms of change within the support process, which we label core practice components, and explain how their use might improve implementation efforts through shorter- and longer-term practice outcomes. We believe that our model holds promise for informing future advancements in both research and practice. Foremost, the core practice components lend themselves to behavioral definitions and thus being observed and reported in action. In research, this will allow the relationships we propose in our model to be tested and refined over time, resulting in an incremental accumulation of knowledge. In practice, a greater understanding of core practice components and their relationships to key practice outcomes offers ways to enhance training and coaching activities for external support providers. The model may also aid support providers to more effectively navigate the support process and plan more timely and effective support strategies.

Uptake of Innovations in Nursing: The Necessity for Implementation Science.

Innovations are critical for improving clinical practice and nursing education, and for enhancing learning and practice change for frontline nurses and nursing students. Continuous innovation for delivering safe care and improving patient outcomes is needed. Merely demonstrating the effectiveness of research innovations is not enough to promote their uptake and use in practice. A 2021 study in cancer research reported that moving research into practice takes about 15 years. Implementation science, a systemic process of identifying the most relevant approaches to move research into practice, has emerged as an effective way to bridge the research-practice gap. The purpose of this article is to discuss why and how Implementation Science is necessary to promote the uptake of innovations in clinical and educational practice.

Planning and implementing practice changes in Ontario maternal-newborn hospital units: a secondary qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Moving evidence into practice is complex, and pregnant and birthing people and their infants do not always receive care that aligns with the best available evidence. Implementation science can inform how to effectively move evidence into practice. While there are a growing number of examples of implementation science being studied in maternal-newborn care settings, it remains unknown how real-world teams of healthcare providers and leaders approach the overall implementation process when making practice changes. The purpose of this study was to describe maternal-newborn hospital teams' approaches to implementing practice changes. We aimed to identify what implementation steps teams take (or not) and identify strengths and potential areas for improvement based on best practices in implementation science. METHODS: We conducted a supplementary qualitative secondary analysis of 22 interviews completed in 2014-2015 with maternal-newborn nursing leaders in Ontario, Canada. We used directed content analysis to code the data to seven steps in an implementation framework (Implementation Roadmap): identify the problem and potential best practice; assemble local evidence; select and customize best practice; discover barriers and drivers; tailor implementation strategies; field-test, plan evaluation, prepare to launch; launch, evaluate, and sustain. Frequency counts are presented for each step. RESULTS: Participants reported completing a median of 4.5 of 7 Implementation Roadmap steps (range = 3-7), with the most common being identifying a practice problem. Other steps were described less frequently (e.g., selecting and adapting evidence, field-testing, outcome evaluation) or discussed frequently but not optimally (e.g., barriers assessment). Participants provided examples of how they engaged point-of-care staff throughout the implementation process, but provided fewer examples of engaging pregnant and birthing people and their families. Some participants stated they used a formal framework or process to guide their implementation process, with the most common being quality improvement approaches and tools. CONCLUSIONS: We identified variability across the 22 hospitals in the implementation steps taken. While we observed many strengths, we also identified areas where further support may be needed. Future work is needed to create opportunities and resources to support maternal-newborn healthcare providers and leaders to apply principles and tools from implementation science to their practice change initiatives.

Creation of a theoretically rooted workbook to support implementers in the practice of knowledge translation.

BACKGROUND: Few training opportunities or resources for non-expert implementers focus on the "practice" as opposed to the "science" of knowledge translation (KT). As a guide for novice implementers, we present an open-access, fillable workbook combining KT theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) that are commonly used to support the implementation of evidence-based practices. We describe the process of creating and operationalizing our workbook. METHODS: Our team has supported more than 1000 KT projects and 300 teams globally to implement evidence-based interventions. Our stakeholders have consistently highlighted their need for guidance on how to operationalize various KT TMFs to support novice implementers in "practising" KT. In direct response to these requests, we created a pragmatic, fillable KT workbook. The workbook was designed by KT scientists and experts in the fields of adult education, graphic design, and usability and was piloted with novice implementers. It is rooted in an integrated KT approach and applies an intersectionality lens, which prompts implementers to consider user needs in the design of implementation efforts. RESULTS: The workbook is framed according to the knowledge-to-action model and operationalizes each stage of the model using appropriate theories or frameworks. This approach removes guesswork in selecting appropriate TMFs to support implementation efforts. Implementers are prompted to complete fillable worksheets that are informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Behaviour Change Wheel, the Effective Practice and Organization of Care framework, Proctor's operationalization framework, the Durlak and DuPre process indicators, and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. As they complete the worksheets, users are guided to apply theoretically rooted approaches in planning the implementation and evaluation of their evidence-based practice. CONCLUSIONS: This workbook aims to support non-expert implementers to use KT TMFs to select and operationalize implementation strategies to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practices. It provides an accessible option for novice implementers who wish to use KT methods to guide their work.

Connecting the science and practice of implementation - applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research.

The saying "horses for courses" refers to the idea that different people and things possess different skills or qualities that are appropriate in different situations. In this paper, we apply the analogy of "horses for courses" to stimulate a debate about how and why we need to get better at selecting appropriate implementation research methods that take account of the context in which implementation occurs. To ensure that implementation research achieves its intended purpose of enhancing the uptake of research-informed evidence in policy and practice, we start from a position that implementation research should be explicitly connected to implementation practice. Building on our collective experience as implementation researchers, implementation practitioners (users of implementation research), implementation facilitators and implementation educators and subsequent deliberations with an international, inter-disciplinary group involved in practising and studying implementation, we present a discussion paper with practical suggestions that aim to inform more practice-relevant implementation research.

Twenty years of capacity building across the cancer prevention and control research network.

PURPOSE: To improve population health, community members need capacity (i.e., knowledge, skills, and tools) to select and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to fit the needs of their local settings. Since 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has funded the national Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) to accelerate the implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs in communities. The CPCRN has developed multiple strategies to build community members' capacity to implement EBIs. This paper describes the history of CPCRN's experience developing and lessons learned through the use of five capacity-building strategies: (1) mini-grant programs, (2) training, (3) online tools, (4) evidence academies, and (5) evaluation support for partners' capacity-building initiatives. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed publications and grey literature reports on CPCRN capacity-building activities. Guided by the Interactive Systems Framework, we developed histories, case studies, and lessons learned for each strategy. Lessons were organized into themes. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: the importance of (1) community-engagement prior to and during implementation of capacity-building strategies, (2) establishing and sustaining partnerships, and (3) co-learning at the levels of centers, networks, and beyond. CONCLUSION: CPCRN activities have increased the ability of community organizations to compete for external funds to support implementation, increased the use of evidence in real-world settings, and promoted the broad-scale implementation of cancer control interventions across more than eight states. Lessons from this narrative review highlight the value of long-term thematic networks and provide useful guidance to other research networks and future capacity-building efforts.

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.

Key Principles Underlying a Research-Practice Alignment in a Federally Qualified Health Center.

Context: Minoritized populations such as racial and ethnic minorities and individuals of less privileged socioeconomic status experience a disproportionate burden of poor hypertension (HTN) control in the United States. Multilevel systems interventions have been shown to improve patient-level outcomes in minoritized populations; however, there remains a large translational gap in implementing these approaches into federally qualified health centers (FQHC), which serve those at highest risk of HTN-related morbidity and mortality. The paucity of purposeful collaborations between academic researchers and practice staff throughout the research process remains a significant roadblock to the timely translation of evidence to practice. Design: This commentary describes the key principles and best practices that underlie the development and sustainment of an equitable research-practice alignment, which is supporting the implementation of multilevel systems intervention for improved HTN care in a large FQHC in Brooklyn, New York. The key principles, which are derived from the central tenants of relationship development and maintenance in community-engaged participatory research, patient-centered outcomes research, and organizational alignment theory include (1) cocreation of a shared mental model, (2) bridging multilevel communication, (3) ensuring mutual accountability, and (4) creating a culture of continuous improvement. Conclusions: Together, the principles guide how the research and practice teams work together to achieve a shared goal of improving the health and well-being of minoritized patients through the provision of high quality, community-oriented HTN care. Best practices to sustain our alignment require an ongoing and deliberate investment in honest and transparent communication by all members.

The Influence of Health Behavior Theory on Implementation Practice and Science: Brief Review and Commentary.

As research defines new treatments and policies to improve the health of patients, an increasing challenge has been to translate these insights into routine clinical practice to benefit patients and society. An important exploration is how theories of human behavior change fit into the science of implementation and quality improvement. In this paper, we begin with a brief review of the intellectual roots of implementation science and quality improvement, followed by a discussion of how theories and principles of behavior change can inform both goals and challenges in using behavior change theories. The insights offered through health behavior change theory have led to changes in how we plan for implementation and select, develop, design and tailor implementation interventions and strategies. While the degree to which organizational and external contexts influence the behavior of providers in these organizations varies widely, some degree of context external to the individual is important and needs adequate consideration. In short, health behavior change theory is essential but not sufficient to integrate in most implementation efforts, where priority must be given to both individual factors and contexts in which individuals operate.

Leveraging academic initiatives to advance implementation practice: a scoping review of capacity building interventions.

BACKGROUND: Academic institutions building capacity for implementation scholarship are also well positioned to build capacity in real world health and human service settings. How practitioners and policy makers are included and trained in implementation capacity-building initiatives, and their impact on building implementation practice capacity is unclear. This scoping review identified and examined features of interventions that build implementation practice capacity across researchers and practitioners or practitioners-in-training. METHODS: Five bibliographic databases were searched. Eligible studies (a) described an implementation capacity building intervention with a connection to an academic institution, (b) targeted researchers and practitioners (including practitioners-in-training, students, or educators), and (c) reported intervention or participant outcomes. Articles that only described capacity building interventions without reporting outcomes were excluded. Consistent with Arksey and O'Malley's framework, key study characteristics were extracted (target participants, core components, and outcomes) and analyzed using open coding and numerical analysis. RESULTS: Of 1349 studies identified, 64 met eligibility for full-text review, and 14 were included in the final analysis. Half of the studies described implementation capacity building interventions that targeted health or behavioral health researchers, practitioners, and practitioners-in-training together, and half targeted practitioners or practitioners-in-training only. The most common components included structured didactic activities offered in person or online, mentorship and expert consultation to support implementation, and practical application activities (e.g., field placements, case studies). Knowledge sharing activities and technical assistance were less common. All studies reported favorable outcomes related to knowledge attainment, increased ability to implement evidence, productivity, and satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Building implementation capacity among practitioners is critical for integrating insights from implementation science into the field and preventing the "secondary" implementation research-to-practice gap. This scoping review identified several promising implementation practice capacity building interventions that tend to build practitioner capacity via expert led activities which may be relevant for academic institutions seeking to build implementation practice capacity. To avoid widening the implementation research-to-practice gap, implementation capacity building interventions are needed that target policy makers, expand beyond multiple practice settings, and leverage university/community partnerships or on-site academic medical centers. Future studies will also be needed to test the impact on service quality and public health outcomes.

Context Matters, So How Do We Get Better at Working With Context in Implementation Research and Practice? Comment on "Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-country Analysis".

In the field of implementation research, it is widely recognised that 'context matters.' Attempts to implement innovations, research and new knowledge into practice invariably meet contextual challenges at multiple levels during the process of implementation. The paper by Squires and colleagues provides a detailed insight into the many different features and attributes of context. Yet, as this commentary argues, there are significant challenges ahead if we are to apply our growing understanding about context to improve the practice of implementation in everyday healthcare. This will require attention to the practicalities of working with context to achieve successful implementation.

Exploring perceptions of implementation practice capacity in community-based behavioral health organizations.

Community-based organizations (CBOs) must have the capacity to adopt, implement, and sustain evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, limited research exists examining CBOs' ability/capacity to implement EBPs. The purpose of this preliminary study was to investigate how staff of CBOs perceive implementation practice capacity, determine factors needed for adequate capacity for implementing EBPs, and examine which perspectives of capacity are shared across organizational levels. Ninety-seven administrators and practitioners of CBOs were surveyed using the Implementation Capacity Survey, which examines perceived importance, presence, and organizational capacity of the CBO in nine implementation practice areas (IPAs) (e.g., leadership). Results revealed participants rated IPAs on the importance scale higher than IPAs on the present scale. Presence and organizational capacity scales were strongly correlated, and results showed significant differences between administrators and practitioners on ratings of presence and organizational capacity. Implications for future research aimed at examining/building implementation practice capacity in community settings will be discussed.

What implementation strategies are relational? Using Relational Theory to explore the ERIC implementation strategies.

The identification and use of implementation strategies in implementation research and practice have strengthened our understanding of the implementation process as well as the causal pathways between mechanisms, strategies, and implementation outcomes. Although these contributions have advanced the application of strategies, there is still a need to learn more about how strategies might integrate relational exchanges and interactions. The inclusion of critical perspectives has been limited in implementation science, and theories such as Relational Theory can expand our understanding of the relational nature of implementation and enhance rigor through alternative theoretical applications. This study applied Relational Theory through a qualitative directed content analysis of the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) implementation strategies and examine relational components in strategy descriptions. Three reviewers used the structured approach to review and categorize the implementation strategies based on the Relational and Transactional Strategy Continuum measure, which operationalizes types of interactions, exchanges and alliances. Relational alliance strategies are those in which there is mutual growth and accountability, frequent interaction, shared power, and potential vulnerability. Operational alliances include forms of working exchanges between parties with balanced transactional and relational features. Operational alliances can be somewhat interactive in nature, with minor exchanges and limited accountability. Transactional alliance strategies are mostly uni-directional, influenced by power differentials, and do not require mutual growth, commitment, or exchange; thus, the power of growth is inherently one-sided. Results from the review suggest more implementation strategies with relational alliance features (highly relational, n = 17, semi-relational, n = 19) compared to transactional (highly transactional, n = 9, semi-transactional, n = 10) and 18 strategies coded as operational alliances. The qualitative review revealed opportunities to further expand how relational exchanges are considered within the implementation strategies descriptions, as well as the role of actors and power dynamics within strategy exchanges. The Relational and Transactional Strategy Continuum measure can help practitioners and researchers consider the sequencing, pairing, and impact on outcomes of different types and combinations of strategies in implementation practice and research. Additionally, the measure can support reflection on strategies that promote positive alliances, frequent connections, bi-directional communication, and power sharing.