How does the external context affect an implementation processes? A qualitative study investigating the impact of macro-level variables on the implementation of goal-oriented primary care.

BACKGROUND: Although the importance of context in implementation science is not disputed, knowledge about the actual impact of external context variables on implementation processes remains rather fragmented. Current frameworks, models, and studies merely describe macro-level barriers and facilitators, without acknowledging their dynamic character and how they impact and steer implementation. Including organizational theories in implementation frameworks could be a way of tackling this problem. In this study, we therefore investigate how organizational theories can contribute to our understanding of the ways in which external context variables shape implementation processes. We use the implementation process of goal-oriented primary care in Belgium as a case. METHODS: A qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews was conducted with actors from a variety of primary care organizations. Data was collected and analyzed with an iterative approach. We assessed the potential of four organizational theories to enrich our understanding of the impact of external context variables on implementation processes. The organizational theories assessed are as follows: institutional theory, resource dependency theory, network theory, and contingency theory. Data analysis was based on a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques using NVivo 12. RESULTS: Institutional theory helps to understand mechanisms that steer and facilitate the implementation of goal-oriented care through regulatory and policy measures. For example, the Flemish government issued policy for facilitating more integrated, person-centered care by means of newly created institutions, incentives, expectations, and other regulatory factors. The three other organizational theories describe both counteracting or reinforcing mechanisms. The financial system hampers interprofessional collaboration, which is key for GOC. Networks between primary care providers and health and/or social care organizations on the one hand facilitate GOC, while on the other hand, technology to support interprofessional collaboration is lacking. Contingent variables such as the aging population and increasing workload and complexity within primary care create circumstances in which GOC is presented as a possible answer. CONCLUSIONS: Insights and propositions that derive from organizational theories can be utilized to expand our knowledge on how external context variables affect implementation processes. These insights can be combined with or integrated into existing implementation frameworks and models to increase their explanatory power.

Will the implementation process for goal-oriented primary care succeed? A qualitative study investigating five perceived attributes of goal-oriented care.

Throughout the western world, goal oriented care (GOC) is increasingly promoted as a strategy towards more person-centered, integrated care. The implementation of goal-oriented care not only takes place at the micro-level with individual primary care providers (PCPs) changing their approach, but also requires meso- and macro-level investment. In this study, we zoom in on experiences and actions of various meso- and macro-level actors that are actively engaged with implementing GOC, both within their organization or at the policy level. In-depth interviews were conducted with n = 23 actors from a variety of different organizations (governmental institutions, provider organizations, patient organizations, health/social care organizations, primary care zones/care councils, etc.), using a semi- interview guide inspired by realist interviewing. Three main drivers for implementation were identified: recognition, commitment and coordination. On top of that, results were interpreted through Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations (Dol) theory in which five attributes are discussed that contribute to or hinder implementation success. Our findings can help define actions to support and facilitate the implementation process of an innovation such as GOC.

The Building Blocks of Implementation Frameworks and Models in Primary Care: A Narrative Review.

Background: Our aim is to identify the core building blocks of existing implementation frameworks and models, which can be used as a basis to further develop a framework for the implementation of complex interventions within primary care practices. Within the field of implementation science, various frameworks, and models exist to support the uptake of research findings and evidence-based practices. However, these frameworks and models often are not sufficiently actionable or targeted for use by intervention designers. The objective of this research is to map the similarities and differences of various frameworks and models, in order to find key constructs that form the foundation of an implementation framework or model that is to be developed. Methods: A narrative review was conducted, searching for papers that describe a framework or model for implementation by means of various search terms, and a snowball approach. The core phases, components, or other elements of each framework or model are extracted and listed. We analyze the similarities and differences between the frameworks and models and elaborate on their core building blocks. These core building blocks form the basis of an overarching model that we will develop based upon this review and put into practice. Results: A total of 28 implementation frameworks and models are included in our analysis. Throughout 15 process models, a total of 67 phases, steps or requirements are extracted and throughout 17 determinant frameworks a total of 90 components, constructs, or elements are extracted and listed into an Excel file. They are bundled and categorized using NVivo 12© and synthesized into three core phases and three core components of an implementation process as common elements of most implementation frameworks or models. The core phases are a development phase, a translation phase, and a sustainment phase. The core components are the intended change, the context, and implementation strategies. Discussion: We have identified the core building blocks of an implementation framework or model, which can be synthesized in three core phases and three core components. These will be the foundation for further research that aims to develop a new model that will guide and support intervention designers to develop and implement complex interventions, while taking account contextual factors.