Enhancing Behavioral Health Implementation in a Care Coordination Program at a Federally Qualified Health Center: A Case Study Applying Implementation Frameworks.

Federally Qualified Health Centers are charged with providing comprehensive health care in traditionally underserved areas, underscoring their importance in caring for and promoting health equity for the large portion of historically marginalized communities in this setting. There is a significant need to ensure Federally Qualified Health Centers are equipped to appropriately address the immense behavioral health needs common among patients served. Care coordination is an evidence-based model that is increasingly utilized in Federally Qualified Health Centers to improve care equity and outcomes. Addressing and supporting behavioral health needs is a key aspect of such care coordination models. Context-specific considerations and programmatic supports, particularly those that address the needs of care coordinators and the complex patients they serve, are needed to ensure such models can appropriately meet and address the behavioral health concerns of the diverse populations served. The goal of this study was to present a mixed-methods case study that systematically applies implementation frameworks to conduct a needs and context assessment to inform the development and testing of evidence-based practice strategies and implementation support as part of a care coordination program within a partnered Federally Qualified Health Center.

Using formative evaluation of a community-based opioid overdose prevention program to inform strategic communication for adoption, implementation, and sustainability.

BACKGROUND: Opioid addiction and overdose is a public health problem in the United States and is expected to remain with substance use increasing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Communities that approach this issue through multi-sector partnerships experience more positive health outcomes. Understanding motivation for stakeholder engagement in these efforts is essential to successful adoption, implementation, and sustainability particularly in the shifting landscape of needs and resources. METHODS: A formative evaluation was conducted on the C.L.E.A.R. Program in Massachusetts, a state heavily impacted by the opioid epidemic. A stakeholder power analysis identified appropriate stakeholders for the study (n = 9). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided data collection and analysis. Surveys (n = 8) examined perception and attitudes on the program; motivations and communication for engagement; and, benefits and barriers to collaboration. Stakeholder interviews (n = 6) explored the quantitative findings in more detail. Surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a content analysis with deductive approach was conducted for stakeholder interviews. The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory guided recommendations for communications to engage stakeholders. RESULTS: Agencies represented a range of sectors and the majority (n = 5) were familiar with the C.L.E.A.R. PROGRAM: Despite the many strengths of the program and existing collaboration, based on the coding densities of each CFIR construct stakeholders identified crucial gaps in the services the program provided and noted that the overall infrastructure of the program could be enhanced. Opportunities for strategic communication to address the stages of DOI align with the gaps identified in the CFIR domains to result in increased agency collaboration and expansion of services into the surrounding communities to ensure sustainability of the C.L.E.A.R. CONCLUSIONS: This study explored factors necessary for ongoing multi-sector collaboration and sustainability of an existing community-based program especially given the changing context from COVID-19. Findings informed both program revisions and communication strategies to promote the program to new and existing collaborating agencies and the community served, and identify effective communication approaches across sectors. This is essential for successful implementation and sustainability of the program, especially as it is adapted and expanded to address post-pandemic times. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study does not report results of a health care intervention on human participants, however it was reviewed and determined an exempt study with the Boston University Institutional Review Board (IRB #H-42107).

Prospective application of theoretical implementation frameworks to improve health care in hospitals - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health Service implementation projects are often guided by theoretical implementation frameworks. Little is known about the effectiveness of these frameworks to facilitate change in processes of care and patient outcomes within the inpatient setting. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of theoretical implementation frameworks in inpatient healthcare settings to change processes of care and associated patient outcomes. METHOD: We conducted a search in CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EMCARE and Cochrane Library databases from 1st January 1995 to 15th June 2021. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to potentially eligible studies. Eligible studies: implemented evidence-based care into an in-patient setting using a theoretical implementation framework applied prospectively; used a prospective study design; presented process of care or patient outcomes; and were published in English. We extracted theoretical implementation frameworks and study design against the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) Checklist and implementation strategies mapped to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. We summarised all interventions using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. We appraised study quality using the Item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for cluster randomised trials. We extracted process of care and patient outcomes and described descriptively. We conducted meta-analysis for process of care and patient outcomes with reference to framework category. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one used a pre-post (no comparison), two a pre-post with a comparison, and two a cluster randomised trial design. Eleven theoretical implementation frameworks were prospectively applied: six process models; five determinant frameworks; and one classic theory. Four studies used two theoretical implementation frameworks. No authors reported their justification for selecting a particular framework and implementation strategies were generally poorly described. No consensus was reached for a preferred framework or subset of frameworks based on meta-analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than the ongoing development of new implementation frameworks, a more consistent approach to framework selection and strengthening of existing approaches is recommended to further develop the implementation evidence base. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019119429.

Experiences of using the i-PARIHS framework: a co-designed case study of four multi-site implementation projects.

BACKGROUND: The integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework is an implementation framework that has been developed and refined over the last 20 years. Its underlying philosophy is that implementing research into healthcare practice is complex, unpredictable and non-linear which therefore requires a flexible and responsive approach to implementation. Facilitation is recognized as the central ingredient of this approach, and i-PARIHS now provides a Facilitation Guide with associated tools. This multiple case study of four implementation projects explored how the i-PARIHS framework has been practically operationalized by diverse implementation project teams. METHODS: A co-design approach was used to elicit the experiences of four implementation project teams who used the i-PARIHS framework to guide their implementation approach. We conducted the established co-design steps of (i) setting up for success, (ii) gathering the experience, and (iii) understanding the experience. In particular we explored teams' approaches to setting up their projects; why and how they used the i-PARIHS framework and what they learnt from the experience. RESULTS: We found both commonalities and differences in the use of i-PARIHS across the four implementation projects: (i) all the projects used the Facilitation Checklist that accompanies i-PARIHS as a starting point, (ii) the projects differed in how facilitation was carried out, (iii) existing tools were adapted for distinct phases: pre-implementation, during implementation, and post-implementation stages; and (iv) project-specific tools were often developed for monitoring implementation activities and fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: We have provided a detailed overview of how current users of i-PARIHS are operationalising the framework, which existing tools they are using or adapting to use, and where they have needed to develop new tools to best utilise the framework. Importantly, this study highlights the value of existing tools from the published i-PARIHS Facilitation Guide and provides a starting point to further refine and add to these tools within a future Mobilising Implementation of i-PARIHS (or "Mi-PARIHS") suite of resources. Specifically, Mi-PARIHS might include more explicit guidance and/or tools for developing a structured implementation plan and monitoring fidelity to the implementation plan, including recording how strategies are tailored to an evolving context.

Factors affecting the implementation of a whole school mindfulness program: a qualitative study using the consolidated framework for implementation research.

BACKGROUND: Preventing the onset of poor mental health in adolescence is an international public health priority. Universal, whole school preventative approaches are valued for their reach, and anti-stigmatising and resilience building principles. Mindfulness approaches to well-being have the potential to be effective when delivered as a whole school approach for both young people and staff. However, despite growing demand, there is little understanding of possible and optimal ways to implement a mindfulness, whole school approach (M-WSA) to well-being. This study aimed to identify the determinants of early implementation success of a M-WSA. We tested the capacity of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to capture the determinants of the implementation of a mental health intervention in a school setting. METHODS: Key members of school staff (n = 15) from five UK secondary schools attempting to implement a M-WSA were interviewed at two-time points, 6 months apart, generating a total of 30 interviews. Interviews explored participants' attitudes, beliefs and experiences around implementing a M-WSA. Interview data were coded as CFIR constructs or other (non CFIR) factors affecting implementation. We also mapped school-reported implementation activity and perceived success over 30 months. RESULTS: The CFIR captured the implementation activities and challenges well, with 74% of CFIR constructs identifiable in the dataset. Of the 38 CFIR constructs, 11 appeared to distinguish between high and low implementation schools. The most essential construct was school leadership. It strongly distinguished between high and low implementation schools and appeared inter-related with many other distinguishing constructs. Other strongly distinguishing constructs included relative priority, networks and communications, formally appointed implementation leaders, knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, and executing. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest key implementation constructs that schools, commissioners and policy makers should focus on to promote successful early implementation of mental health programs. School leadership is a key construct to target at the outset. The CFIR appears useful for assessing the implementation of mental health programs in UK secondary schools.

The value of implementation frameworks: Using the active implementation frameworks to guide system-wide implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving.

In the last decade, many implementation frameworks have emerged that consolidate the research on implementation science, guiding purveyors and service agencies in improving implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs). In this paper, we describe how the purveyor of one EBP utilized the active implementation frameworks (AIFs) to define and standardize strategies for site-wide implementation. We illustrate what implementation looked like before and after using AIFs to understand implementation, as well as some ways in which using the AIFs helped the purveyor identify, and then overcome, barriers to implementation. This paper provides a model for others who seek to use AIFs to guide their implementation practices, or more broadly, an illustration of how to use any implementation framework to ensure best practices in implementation.

Adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in real-world settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Globally, many children fail to meet the World Health Organization's physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. Schools are an ideal setting to intervene, yet despite many interventions in this setting, success when delivered under real-world conditions or at scale is limited. This systematic review aims to i) identify which implementation models are used in school-based physical activity effectiveness, dissemination, and/or implementation trials, and ii) identify factors associated with the adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity interventions in real-world settings. METHODS: The review followed PRISMA guidelines and included a systematic search of seven databases from January 1st, 2000 to July 31st, 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ERIC. A forward citation search of included studies using Google Scholar was performed on the 21st of January 2019 including articles published until the end of 2018. Study inclusion criteria: (i) a primary outcome to increase physical activity and/or decrease sedentary behaviour among school-aged children and/or adolescents; (ii) intervention delivery within school settings, (iii) use of implementation models to plan or interpret study results; and (iv) interventions delivered under real-world conditions. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (i) efficacy trials; (ii) studies applying or testing school-based physical activity policies, and; (iii) studies targeting special schools or pre-school and/or kindergarten aged children. RESULTS: 27 papers comprising 17 unique interventions were included. Fourteen implementation models (e.g., RE-AIM, Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations, Precede Proceed model), were applied across 27 papers. Implementation models were mostly used to interpret results (n = 9), for planning evaluation and interpreting results (n = 8), for planning evaluation (n = 6), for intervention design (n = 4), or for a combination of designing the intervention and interpreting results (n = 3). We identified 269 factors related to barriers (n = 93) and facilitators (n = 176) for the adoption (n = 7 studies), implementation (n = 14 studies) and sustainability (n = 7 studies) of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation model use was predominately centered on the interpretation of results and analyses, with few examples of use across all study phases as a planning tool and to understand results. This lack of implementation models applied may explain the limited success of interventions when delivered under real-world conditions or at scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018099836).

Transitioning the Adult with Type 2 Diabetes From the Acute to Chronic Care Setting: Strategies to Support Pragmatic Implementation Success.

Scientific evidence is available to guide the how to of medications management when patients with diabetes are hospitalized or present to the Emergency Department. However, few clinical trials in the diabetes field have addressed the execution, coupled with established implementation effectiveness evaluation frameworks to help inform and assess implementation practices to support the transition in care. These deficiencies may be overcome by (1) applying the principles of implementation and delivery systems science; (2) engaging the principles of human factors (HF) throughout the design, development, and evaluation planning activities; and (3) utilizing mixed methods to design the intervention, workflow processes, and evaluate the intervention for sustainability within existing care delivery models. This article provides a discussion of implementation science and human factors science including an overview of commonly used frameworks which can be applied to structure design and implementation of sustainable and generalizable interventions.

Implementing evidence-based practices in rural settings: a scoping review of theories, models, and frameworks.

Background: Rural healthcare has unique characteristics that affect the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions. Numerous theories, models, and frameworks have been developed to guide implementation of healthcare interventions, though not specific to rural healthcare. The present scoping review sought to identify the theories, models, and frameworks most frequently applied to rural health and propose an approach to rural health research that harnesses selected constructs from these theories, models, and frameworks. This resulting synthesis can serve as a guide to researchers, policy makers, and clinicians seeking to employ commonly used theories, models, and frameworks to rural health. Methods: We used the Scopus abstract indexing service to identify peer-reviewed literature citing one or more of theories, models, or frameworks used in dissemination and implementation research and including the word "rural" in the Title, Abstract, or Keywords. We screened the remaining titles and abstracts to ensure articles met additional inclusion criteria. We conducted a full review of the resulting 172 articles to ensure they identified one or more discrete theory, model, or framework applied to research or quality improvement projects. We extracted the theories, models, and frameworks and categorized these as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, or evaluation frameworks. Results: We retained 61 articles of which 28 used RE-AIM, 11 used Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework, eight used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and six used the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS). Additional theories, models, and frameworks were cited in three or fewer reports in the literature. The 14 theories, models, and frameworks cited in the literature were categorized as seven process models, four determinant frameworks, one evaluation framework, and one classic theory. Conclusions: The RE-AIM framework was the most frequently cited framework in the rural health literature, followed by CBPR, CFIR, and iPARIHS. A notable advantage of RE-AIM in rural healthcare settings is the focus on reach as a specified outcome, given the challenges of engaging a geographically diffuse and often isolated population. We present a rationale for combining the strengths of these theories, models, and frameworks to guide a research agenda specific to rural healthcare research. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/fn2cd/.

Understanding the Barriers and Facilitators of Digital Health Technology (DHT) Implementation in Neurological Rehabilitation: An Integrative Systematic Review.

Background: Digital Health technologies (DHT) have potential to deliver intensive, novel and engaging rehabilitation for people with neurological conditions, yet health services lack a strong track record in embedding DHT into practice. The aim of this review was to synthesise factors that have been shown to influence implementation of DHT into neurological rehabilitation. Method: An integrative review was undertaken. An extensive search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, EMBASE was undertaken. The title and abstract of all retrieved sources were screened against pre-defined criteria. Retained sources underwent full text review. The quality of all included sources was assessed. A meta-ethnographic synthesis explored commonalities and contradictions of the included studies. Results: Fourteen studies (1 quantitative, 8 qualitative and 5 mixed methods) were included. Eleven implementation theories/models/frameworks were used across the 14 studies. Five themes were identified: (i) individual factors; (ii) user experience of the technology; (iii) the content of the intervention; (iv) access to the technology and (v) supporting use. Conclusions: Key factors which appear to influence the implementation of DHT into clinical settings are highlighted. Implementation theories, models and frameworks are under-utilised in DHT rehabilitation research. This needs to be addressed if DHT are to realise their potential in neurological rehabilitation. Registration: The protocol was registered and is available from PROSPERO (CRD42021268984).

From theory to practice in implementation science: qualitative insights from the implementation model developed by a commercial eMental Health provider.

BACKGROUND: Although eMental health interventions are a viable solution to address disparities in access to mental healthcare and increase its efficiency, they still face challenges of implementation. Literature highlights numerous barriers such as diffusion of responsibility and unclear expectations of what implementation entails might hinder this process. While research mostly focuses on analyzing these barriers, there is an urgent need to increase uptake in practice. In turn, commercial companies focus mostly on increasing uptake, while overlooking research outputs. To bridge the gap between research and practice, attention to how implementation occurs in practice is required. This study investigates "Make it Happen" (MiH), the implementation model developed by the eMental Health company Minddistrict, aiming to gain more insight into operationalizing implementation frameworks by 1) describing MiH and its conceptual underpinnings, and 2) gaining lessons learned from the development of MiH. Ultimately, this work aims at improving existing scientific frameworks by extending them with knowledge from practice. METHODS: First, individual interviews and focus groups with Minddistrict implementation managers were performed. Second, individual interviews with project leads in mental healthcare organizations that were involved in the implementation of Minddistrict were conducted. Within Minddistrict, 7 implementation managers and account managers were involved, in addition to 11 project leads from mental healthcare organizations. Data were elaborated with thematic analysis. RESULTS: A comprehensive description of MiH and its 5 main phases was achieved. During the 1) Onboarding phase, implementing organizations are guided by Minddistrict to build a team responsible for implementation, which then 2) designs patient and client journeys, 3) builds, tailors and configures their offer, 4) trains key-users and, 5) evaluates the success of implementation. All participants had extensive and aligned definitions and articulated expectations on implementation. Points of improvement for the model such as role ambiguity and excessive workload were identified. As strengths, internal motivation and good relationships with the provider were valued. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights the importance of clear role division and stakeholder engagement in implementation processes, and suggest that a strong collaboration between companies and academia could optimize implementation efforts and ensure a better fit between humans, context, and technologies.

How can a behavioral economics lens contribute to implementation science?

BACKGROUND: Implementation science in health is an interdisciplinary field with an emphasis on supporting behavior change required when clinicians and other actors implement evidence-based practices within organizational constraints. Behavioral economics has emerged in parallel and works towards developing realistic models of how humans behave and categorizes a wide range of features of choices that can influence behavior. We argue that implementation science can be enhanced by the incorporation of approaches from behavioral economics. Main body First, we provide a general overview of implementation science and ways in which implementation science has been limited to date. Second, we review principles of behavioral economics and describe how concepts from BE have been successfully applied to healthcare including nudges deployed in the electronic health record. For example, de-implementation of low-value prescribing has been supported by changing the default in the electronic health record. We then describe what a behavioral economics lens offers to existing implementation science theories, models and frameworks, including rich and realistic models of human behavior, additional research methods such as pre-mortems and behavioral design, and low-cost and scalable implementation strategies. We argue that insights from behavioral economics can guide the design of implementation strategies and the interpretation of implementation studies. Key objections to incorporating behavioral economics are addressed, including concerns about sustainment and at what level the strategies work. CONCLUSION: Scholars should consider augmenting implementation science theories, models, and frameworks with relevant insights from behavioral economics. By drawing on these additional insights, implementation scientists have the potential to boost efforts to expand the provision and availability of high quality care.

The behaviours identified and the behaviour change techniques planned in health partnerships for antimicrobial stewardship.

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions promote optimised use of antimicrobials by healthcare professionals. In 2019-2020, the Commonwealth Partnerships for Antimicrobial Stewardship (CwPAMS) supported 12 global health partnerships in low- and middle-income countries to co-develop education and training interventions to improve AMS practices amongst hospital staff. This study aimed to describe six of the CwPAMS health partnerships' target behaviours and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) within their planned AMS interventions. Content analysis extracted behaviours and BCTs from partnership materials. Techniques used by partnerships with (n = 2) and without (n = 4) an embedded behavioural scientist were compared, to understand their added value. Nineteen AMS related behaviours for hospital staff were targeted; most commonly hand hygiene and antibiotic prescribing behaviours. Twenty-three BCTs were coded, with instructing participants on how to perform the behaviours the most prominent across all, including partnerships with a behavioural scientist. Intervention materials did not always report the context of the intervention being delivered, including who was delivering it and the target. Behaviours for change were also often not specified. Partnerships varied in reporting their content and specific behaviours, impacting replicability of their interventions, and limiting knowledge exchange. An AMS behaviour change intervention resource is recommended to support clear specification of prospective AMS interventions.

Mapping the Theoretical Domain Framework to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: do multiple frameworks add value?

BACKGROUND: Implementation researchers often combine the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) in their studies. However there is some debate on the merits of using multiple frameworks-whether they contribute to results or provide superfluous analysis. Our recent research combined the TDF and CFIR to identify determinants to widespread incorporation of patient held medication lists (PHML) in healthcare practice. The aim of this report is to provide guidance on the use of the TDF and CFIR; by assessing the degree of overlap between the two frameworks in their application to interviews about PHML. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and non HCPs (people taking multiple medicines and caregivers).Interview data were transcribed and analysed using the TDF and CFIR. Within paired domains substantial intersection/overlap across constructs and domains within the two frameworks was classified as > 75% of coding references, consistent intersection/overlap was defined as > 50% and ≤ 75%, average intersection/overlap was defined as ≤ 50% and > 25% and non-substantial intersection/overlap was classified as ≤ 25% of coding references. RESULTS: Interview data were collected from 39 participants - 21 HCPs and 18 non HCPs. Mapping of TDF domains to CFIR domains/constructs identified key determinants in six TDF domains: Environmental context & resources, Beliefs about capabilities, Beliefs about consequences, Social influences, Behavioural regulation and Social/professional role & identity; and five CFIR domains: Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individual and Process. A pattern of substantial intersection/overlap in coding emerged with broad TDF domains such as Environmental context & resources often linked to well-defined CFIR domains and constructs (e.g. design quality & packaging within Intervention Characteristics). Broad CFIR constructs such as knowledge & beliefs about intervention within Characteristics of Individuals also linked to more descriptive TDF domains like Beliefs about capabilities. In addition there was some unexpected non-substantial intersection/overlap in coding with the TDF domain Social influences less frequently linked to the CFIR Inner Setting domain and constructs such as networks and communications. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying intersections/overlaps in coding between CFIR and TDF can assist interpretation of findings in implementation research. The strengths of each framework were exploited in a reciprocal process which provided more information to broad/poorly defined domains and enabled identification of implementation determinants and innovation determinants.

A rapid review of implementation frameworks underpinning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children's health and social care programs.

OBJECTIVE: This rapid review aimed to identify (1) key frameworks and components underpinning the effective implementation of Health and Social Care (HSC) programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children; and (2) participatory and co-design frameworks guiding the implementation. METHODS: Four databases were searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles published between 2015 and 2021. The focus was on HSC models, frameworks, projects or services with an implementation focus for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged 0-12 years. RESULTS: Seven studies identifying components supporting effective implementation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HSC programs were included. Continuous Quality Improvement was the most widely applied approach. Most studies described participatory and co-design approaches to ensure suitability for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a paucity of evidence on the effective implementation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children's HSC programs. Implementation approaches that foster cultural safety and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership, support diverse partnerships and promote localised application may facilitate the effective implementation of HSC programs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Future research in this area would benefit from greater consideration of appropriate implementation frameworks and co-design approaches, and emphasis on reporting interventions, implementation frameworks and co-design approaches for HSC programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

Researching the Impact of Service provider Education (RISE) Project - a multiphase mixed methods protocol to evaluate implementation acceptability and feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Health and social service providers receive limited education on recognizing and responding to family violence. With adequate education, providers could be prepared to identify individuals subjected to family violence and help reduce the risk of associated impairment. Informed by the Active Implementation Frameworks, our research will determine the scope of strategies needed for the uptake and sustainability of educational interventions focused on family violence for providers. It will also determine the acceptability, feasibility, and proof-of-concept for a new educational intervention, called VEGA (Violence, Evidence, Guidance, Action), for developing and improving primary care provider knowledge and skills in family violence. METHODS: This paper details the protocol for the Researching the Impact of Service provider Education (RISE) Project. The RISE Project follows a sequential multiphase mixed method research design; qualitative and quantitative data are being collected and integrated over three conceptually and methodologically linked research phases. Activities primarily occur in Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec. Phase 1 uses a sequential exploratory mixed method research design to characterize the scope and salience of learning and implementation needs and preferences for family violence education. Phase 2 will use an embedded mixed method research design to determine whether VEGA technology supports providers to achieve their family violence learning goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Phase 3 will use a concurrent mixed method research design to determine acceptability, feasibility, and proof-of-concept for evaluating whether VEGA improves primary care providers' knowledge and skills in family violence. This final phase will provide information on implementation strategies for family violence education in the "real world." It will also generate data on provider recruitment, retention, and data completeness, as well as exploratory estimates of the effect for provider outcome measures proposed for a randomized controlled trial. DISCUSSION: The RISE Project comprehensively integrates an implementation approach to improve family violence education for the health and social service professions. It will provide important information about factors that could influence the uptake and effectiveness of a health profession's educational intervention into the real world, as well as provide foundational evidence concerning the tenability of using a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of VEGA in primary care settings.

Adaptation and implementation processes of a culture-centred community-based peer-education programme for older Maori.

BACKGROUND: Health inequities experienced by kaumatua (older Maori) in Aotearoa, New Zealand, are well documented. Examples of translating and adapting research into practice that identifies ways to help address such inequities are less evident. The study used the He Pikinga Waiora (HPW) implementation framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to explore promising co-design and implementation practices in translating an evidence-based peer-education programme for older Maori to new communities. METHODS: The study was grounded in an Indigenous methodology (Kaupapa Maori) and a participatory research approach. Data were collected from research documentation, community meeting and briefing notes, and interviews with community researchers. RESULTS: The data analysis resulted in several key promising practices: Kaumatua mana motuhake (kaumatua independence and autonomy) where community researchers centred the needs of kaumatua in co-designing the programme with researchers; Whanaungatanga (relationships and connectedness) which illustrated how community researchers' existing and emerging relationships with kaumatua, research partners, and each other facilitated the implementation process; and Whakaoti Rapanga (problem-solving) which centred on the joint problem-solving undertaken by the community and university researchers, particularly around safety issues. These results illustrate content, process, and relationship issues associated with implementation effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that relational factors are central to the co-design process and also offers an example of a braided river, or He Awa Whiria, approach to implementation. The study offers a valuable case study in how to translate, adapt, and implement a research-based health programme to Indigenous community settings through co-design processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The project was registered on 6 March 2020 with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12620000316909 . Prospectively registered.

Barriers and Motivators of private hospitals' engagement in Tuberculosis care in Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: The involvement of private hospitals in Tuberculosis care in Uganda is still limited. There is a lack of literature about the barriers and motivators to private hospitals' engagement in Tuberculosis care in Uganda. OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers to and motivators of private hospitals' engagement in Tuberculosis care. METHODS: The study employed a qualitative study design that utilized in-depth interviews with 13 private healthcare workers purposively selected in June 2020 due to their active involvement in Tuberculosis care from four urban private hospitals in Mbarara Municipality. An inductive, content analytic approach framed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, was used for analysis. The interviews were transcribed and coded to identify key themes using content analysis. RESULTS: Focusing through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, barriers to private hospitals' engagement were related to cost, external policies and incentives, structure characteristics, networks and communications, and knowledge and beliefs about the intervention. These include concerns regarding the payment of care by patients; indirect income-generating nature of Tuberculosis management; lack of drugs, registers, and diagnostic tools; lack of accreditation from the Ugandan Ministry of Health; limited space for keeping Tuberculosis patients; lack of proper follow-up mechanism; lack of training and qualified human resources; and delayed seeking of health care by the patients. Perceived high quality of care in the private hospitals; privacy and confidentiality concerns; proximity of private hospitals to patients; and formalization of partnerships between private hospitals and the government were the motivators that arose from the three constructs (relative advantage, patient needs, and resources, and engaging). CONCLUSION: The engagement of private hospitals in Tuberculosis care requires commitment from key stakeholders supplemented with the organizational shared beliefs towards this change. There is a need for ensuring mechanisms for lessening these barriers to ensure full engagement of private hospitals in Tuberculosis care.

Provision of Defect-Free Care: Implementation Science in Surgical Patient Safety.

Implementation science is the study of the translation of evidence-based practices to real-world clinical environments. Implementation is measured with specific outcomes including acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, sustainability, and implementation cost. There are defined frameworks and models that outline implementation strategies and assist researchers in identifying barriers and facilitators to achieve implementation and conduct implementation research using methods such as qualitative analysis, parallel group, pre-/postintervention, interrupted time series, and cluster or stepped-wedge randomized trials. Deimplementation is the study of how to remove ineffective or unnecessary practices from the clinical setting and is an equally important component of implementation science.

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.