An embedded multiple case study: using CFIR to map clinical food security screening constructs for the development of primary care practice guidelines

Background Food insecurity (FI), the limited access to healthy food to live an active and healthy life, is a social determinant of health linked to poor dietary health and difficulty with disease management in the United States (U.S.). Healthcare experts support the adoption of validated screening tools within primary care practice to identify and connect FI patients to healthy and affordable food resources. Yet, a lack of standard practices limits uptake. The purpose of this study was to understand program processes and outcomes of primary care focused FI screening initiatives that may guide wide-scale program implementation. Methods This was an embedded multiple case study of two primary care-focused initiatives implemented in two diverse health systems in Chicago and Suburban Cook County that routinely screened patients for FI and referred them to onsite food assistance programs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and an iterative process were used to collect/analyze qualitative data through semi-structured interviews with N = 19 healthcare staff. Intended program activities, outcomes, actors, implementation barriers/facilitators and overarching implementation themes were identified as a part of a cross-case analysis. Results Programs outcomes included: the number of patients screened, identified as FI and that participated in the onsite food assistance program. Study participants reported limited internal resources as implementation barriers for program activities. The implementation climate that leveraged the strength of community collaborations and aligned internal, implementation climate were critical facilitators that contributed to the flexibility of program activities that were tailored to fill gaps in resources and meet patient and clinician needs. Conclusion Highly adaptable programs and the healthcare context enhanced implementation feasibility across settings. These characteristics can support program uptake in other settings, but should be used with caution to preserve program fidelity. A foundational model for the development and testing of standard clinical practice was the product of this study.

Meta-review of implementation determinants for policies promoting healthy diet and physically active lifestyle: application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Background Although multiple systematic reviews indicate that various determinants (barriers and facilitators) occur in the implementation processes of policies promoting healthy diet, physical activity (PA), and sedentary behavior (SB) reduction, the overarching synthesis of such reviews is missing. Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this meta-review aims to (1) identify determinants that were systematically indicated as occurring during the implementation processes and (2) identify differences in the presence of determinants across reviews versus stakeholder documents on healthy diet/PA/SB policies, reviews/stakeholder documents addressing healthy diet policies versus PA/SB policies targeting any population/setting, and healthy diet/PA/SB policies focusing on school settings. Methods A meta-review of published systematic scoping or realist reviews (k = 25) and stakeholder documents (k = 17) was conducted. Data from nine bibliographic databases and documentation of nine major stakeholders were systematically searched. Included reviews (72%) and stakeholder documents (100%) provided qualitative synthesis of original research on implementation determinants of policies promoting healthy diet or PA or SB reduction, and 28% of reviews provided some quantitative synthesis. Determinants were considered strongly supported if they were indicated by ≥ 60.0% of included reviews/stakeholder documents. Results Across the 26 CFIR-based implementation determinants, seven were supported by 66.7–76.2% of reviews/stakeholder documents. These determinants were cost, networking with other organizations/communities, external policies, structural characteristics of the setting, implementation climate, readiness for implementation, and knowledge/beliefs of involved individuals. Most frequently, published reviews provided support for inner setting and individual determinants, whereas stakeholder documents supported outer and inner setting implementation determinants. Comparisons between policies promoting healthy diet with PA/SB policies revealed shared support for only three implementation determinants: cost, implementation climate, and knowledge/beliefs. In the case of healthy diet/PA/SB policies targeting school settings, 14 out of 26 implementation determinants were strongly supported. Conclusions The strongly supported (i.e., systematically indicated) determinants may guide policymakers and researchers who need to prioritize potential implementation determinants when planning and monitoring the implementation of respective policies. Future research should quantitatively assess the importance or role of determinants and test investigate associations between determinants and progress of implementation processes. Trial registration PROSPERO, #CRD42019133341

Measuring implementation climate: psychometric properties of the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS) in Norwegian mental health care services

BackgroundEmployees’ perceptions of organizational climate for implementation of new methods are important in assessing and planning for implementation efforts. More specifically, feedback from employees’ points to which implementation strategies to select, adopt, and tailor in building positive climate for implementation of new evidence-based practices within the organization. Implementation climate can be measured with the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS). The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the ICS in outpatient mental health clinics.MethodsThe ICS was administered to 383 clinicians within 47 different child and adult mental health clinics across the country. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis to assess the psychometric functioning of the ICS. Cronbach’s alpha was examined to assess internal consistency. We also examined criterion related validity of the scale by comparing it with an alternative measure of implementation climate (concurrent validity) and by examining correlations with clinicians’ intentions to use evidence-based practices.ResultsResults supported the 6-factor structure and the internal consistency reliability of the ICS. One exception was poor functioning of the Reward scale. Concurrent validity was stronger at the group than at the individual level, and assessment of associations with clinicians’ intentions to use evidence- based practices showed positive correlations.ConclusionsThe Norwegian version of the ICS is a promising tool for assessing implementation climate which can provide organizations with specific feedback concerning which aspects of the implementation climate to attend to. Due to poor functioning of the Reward scale, adaptations and further testing of this is recommended.

Applying Implementation Science to Support Active Collaboration in Noninvasive Brain–Computer Interface Development and Translation for Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to consider how, alongside engineering advancements, noninvasive brain–computer interface (BCI) for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC; BCI-AAC) developments can leverage implementation science to increase the clinical impact of this technology. We offer the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a structure to help guide future BCI-AAC research. Specifically, we discuss CFIR primary domains that include intervention characteristics, the outer and inner settings, the individuals involved in the intervention, and the process of implementation, alongside pertinent subdomains including adaptability, cost, patient needs and recourses, implementation climate, other personal attributes, and the process of engaging. The authors support their view with current citations from both the AAC and BCI-AAC fields. Conclusions: The article aimed to provide thoughtful considerations for how future research may leverage the CFIR to support meaningful BCI-AAC translation for those with severe physical impairments. We believe that, although significant barriers to BCI-AAC development still exist, incorporating implementation research may be timely for the field of BCI-AAC and help account for diversity in end users, navigate implementation obstacles, and support a smooth and efficient translation of BCI-AAC technology. Moreover, the sooner clinicians, individuals who use AAC, their support networks, and engineers collectively improve BCI-AAC outcomes and the efficiency of translation, the sooner BCI-AAC may become an everyday tool in the AAC arsenal.

Examining US Public Early Intervention for Toddlers With Autism: Characterizing Services and Readiness for Evidence-Based Practice Implementation

As the rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) increase and early screening efforts intensify, more toddlers with high likelihood of ASD are entering the United States' (US') publicly funded early intervention system. Early intervention service delivery for toddlers with ASD varies greatly based on state resources and regulations. Research recommends beginning ASD-specific evidence-based practices (EBP), especially caregiver-implemented intervention, as early as possible to facilitate the development of social-communication skills and general learning. Translating EBP into practice has been challenging, especially in low-resourced areas. The main goal of this study was to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of public early intervention system structure, service delivery practices, and factors influencing EBP use for children with ASD in the US. Participants (N = 133) included 8 early intervention state coordinators in 7 states, 29 agency administrators in those states, 57 early intervention providers from those agencies, and 39 caregivers of children with ASD receiving services from those providers. Online surveys gathered stakeholder and caregiver perspectives on early intervention services as well as organizational factors related to EBP implementation climate and culture. Stakeholders identified key intervention needs for young children with ASD. In general, both agency administrators and direct providers reported feeling somewhat effective or very effective in addressing most needs of children with ASD. They reported the most difficulty addressing eating, sleeping, family stress, and stereotyped behaviors. Data indicate that children from families with higher income received significantly higher service intensity. While administrators and providers reported high rates of high-quality caregiver coaching (>60%), caregivers reported low rates (23%). Direct providers with more favorable attitudes toward EBP had greater EBP use. In turn, provider attitudes toward EBP were significantly associated with implementation leadership and culture at their agency. Results suggest that publicly funded early intervention programs in the US require additional resources and training for providers and leaders to support improved implementation climate and attitudes toward ASD EBPs. Results also suggest that more state system support is needed to increase use of ASD-specific EBP use, including high-quality caregiver coaching, to better serve toddlers with ASD. Recommendations for implementation strategies are addressed.

Between Acceptance and Rejection: How Gender Influences the Implementation Climate of a School Sexuality Education Program

The implementation climate is the shared reception of the individuals involved in the intervention; it is a fundamental determinant of the success of program implementation. One of the factors that affects the implementation climate is gender, since it can influence the commitment of the participants toward sexuality education. This study aims to identify the implementation climate for students who receive a school sexuality education program and explore whether their gender is related to the acceptance of the intervention. A selective quantitative method was used, and a survey was designed to measure implementation climate. A confirmation factorial analysis (CFA) using Mplus 7.0 was conducted to establish the structure of the instrument. A cluster analysis was performed to determine levels of implementation climate. To measure the association between participants’ gender and the implementation climate, a Chi-square analysis was performed between each cluster, the gender of the students and each cluster and the type of school (single-sex girls’ schools, single-sex boys’ schools and co-educational schools). The results demonstrated four levels of implementation climate: acceptance, receptivity, conflict and rejection. Significant differences were observed in the relationship between these levels and the gender of the participants. Acceptance was associated with single-sex girls’ schools and female students, conflict and rejection were associated with a single-sex boys’ schools and male students, and co-educational schools were associated with conflict. This shows that there is a relationship between the different levels of the implementation climate and the gender.

Organizational Context in General and Special Education: An Exploratory Investigation to Describe the Perspective of School Leaders

Organizational context (e.g., climate, culture, resources) can impede or enhance implementation of evidence-based practices in general education settings or special education settings serving students with autism spectrum disorder. We examined the relations between organizational context and individual (i.e., implementation leadership, administrator- or service provider-role) or school (i.e., enrollment size, public/nonpublic school type) characteristics. Participants were administrative or service providing leaders (n = 34) from 11 schools in one state on the East Coast of the United States. School leaders’ average ratings of the organizational context were generally more positive for special education than general education; however, greater culture stress was reported for special education. Correlation analyses indicated being an administrator and implementation leadership were positively associated with implementation climate in both education settings. Being an administrator was also positively associated with cultural effort (i.e., how hard people work towards achieving goals) in special education, but negatively associated with culture stress in general education. In special education, nonpublic schools had better climates (both learning and implementation), but more culture stress. Additionally, school enrollment size was negatively related to available resources and implementation climate in special education. Investigating the similarities and differences in organizational context across educational settings is needed in future research.

An Exploratory, Qualitative Study of How Organizations Implement the Hierarchy of Controls Applied to Total Worker Health®

Understanding of how Total Worker Health® (TWH) guidelines are implemented in employment organizations in the USA is not well understood. The purpose of this study is to explore how the principles of the Hierarchy of Controls Applied to NIOSH Total Worker Health (TWH HoC), have been implemented among organizations featured as Promising Practices for TWH between 2012–2019, with special focus on the work-related issues of fatigue, stress, sedentary work, and tobacco control. We also sought to identify benefits, obstacles, and lessons learned in the implementation of the TWH HoC. Eighteen organizations were identified to be included in the study. Using a qualitative cross-sectional design and purposive sampling, seven in-depth interviews were conducted with thirteen key informants. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide the thematic analysis and interpretation of qualitative data. Four themes identified include recognition of the TWH approach and TWH HoC, implementation of the TWH HoC, barriers and facilitators in addressing specific work-related issues, and implementation climate primes benefits, obstacles, and lessons learned. The inner setting (i.e., culture, implementation climate, readiness for implementation) of organizations was a prominent determinant of the implementation of integrated worker safety, health, and well-being interventions.

Identifying and understanding the contextual factors that shaped mid-implementation outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in organizations implementing mental health recovery innovations into services

Background Seven housing and health services organizations were guided through a process of translating Chapter Six of the Canadian Guidelines for Recovery-Oriented Practice into a recovery-oriented innovation and plan for its implementation. At the time of the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown measures, six of the seven organizations had begun implementing their chosen innovation (peer workers, wellness recovery action planning facilitator training, staff training and a family support group). This mid-implementation study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify contextual factors that influenced organizations to continue or postpone implementation of recovery-oriented innovations in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Twenty-seven semi-structured 45-min interviews were conducted between May and June 2020 (21 implementation team members and six providers of the innovation (trainers, facilitators, peer workers). Interview guides and analysis were based on the CFIR. Content analysis combined deductive and inductive approaches. Summaries of coded data were given ratings based on strength and valence of the construct’s impact on implementation. Ratings were visualized by mid-implementation outcome and recovery innovation to identify constructs which appear to distinguish between sites with a more or less favorable mid-implementation outcomes. Results Four mid-implementation outcomes were observed at this snapshot in time (from most to least positive): continued implementation with adaptation (one site), postponement with adaptation and estimated relaunch date (four sites), indefinite postponement with no decision on relaunch date (one site), and no implementation of innovation yet (one site). Two constructs had either a negative influence (external policies and incentives—renamed COVID-19-related external policy for this study) or a positive influence (leadership engagement), regardless of implementation outcome. Four factors appeared to distinguish between more or less positive mid-implementation outcome: adaptability, implementation climate and relative priority, available resources, and formally appointed internal implementation leaders (renamed “engaging implementation teams during the COVID-19 pandemic” for this study). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented outer setting factor. Studies that use the CFIR at the mid-implementation stage are rare, as are studies focusing on the outer setting. Through robust qualitative analysis, we identify the key factors that shaped the course of implementation of recovery innovations over this turbulent time.

Tracking the Randomized Rollout of a Veterans Affairs Opioid Risk Management Tool: A Multi-method Implementation Evaluation Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

BackgroundThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard to assist VHA clinicians in identifying Veterans at risk for adverse opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a national policy was implemented requiring providers at all VHA facilities to complete case reviews of Veterans identified by STORM as very high risk for adverse events. Nationally, facilities were randomized by the type of oversight required when sufficient case reviews were not completed and also by the timing of an increase in the number of required case reviews. As part of a comprehensive assessment of this policy intervention, we aimed to 1) identify barriers and facilitators to implementing case reviews as required in the policy; 2) assess variation across the four arms of the study; and 3) evaluate associations between facility characteristics and implementation barriers and facilitators.MethodsUsing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we developed a semi-structured interview guide to examine barriers to and facilitators of implementing the STORM policy. Staff from 40 purposefully selected facilities who were involved in implementation were invited to participate in telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were coded and then organized into memos, which were numerically rated using the -2 to +2 CFIR rating system for each construct. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the mean ratings on each CFIR construct, the associations between ratings and study arm, and three facility characteristics (size, rurality, and level of academic detailing) associated with CFIR ratings. We used the mean CFIR rating for each site to determine which constructs differed between the sites with highest and lowest overall CFIR scores, and these constructs were described in detail. ResultsInterviews with 78 staff at 39 VHA facilities identified a slightly positive (+0.2) overall mean CFIR rating. CFIR ratings were not significantly different between the four study arms, nor associated with facility characteristics. Overall, two important barriers to implementation were CFIR constructs Access to knowledge and information and Evaluating and reflecting. Having time to complete the reviews was a pervasive barrier. Sites with higher overall CFIR scores showed three important facilitators: Leadership engagement, Engaging, and Implementation climate. ConclusionAlthough there was variability in implementation barriers and facilitators across facilities, these were unrelated to study arms and facility characteristics. Leadership, resources, and overall implementation climate were the strongest facilitators of policy implementation.