Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies

Theory-Guided Development of Fertility Care Implementation Strategies for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors.

Purpose: Oncofertility care at cancer diagnosis remains underimplemented across oncology and fertility care settings, with limited tools to scale up effective implementation strategies. Using implementation science theory, we systematically assessed factors that influence oncofertility care implementation and mapped scalable strategies, particularly electronic health record (EHR)-enabled ones, that fit adult and pediatric oncology care contexts. Methods: Using purposeful sampling, we recruited health care providers and female, reproductive-aged survivors of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancers (AYA survivors) from a comprehensive cancer center and a freestanding children's hospital to semistructured interviews and focus groups. Using thematic analysis combining inductive codes with deductive codes using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we characterized barriers and facilitators to care and designed responsive strategies. Two coders independently coded each transcript. Results: We recruited 19 oncology and fertility providers and 9 cancer survivors. We identified barriers and facilitators to oncofertility care in the CFIR domains of individual, inner setting, outer setting, and process, allowing us to conceptualize oncofertility care to encompass three core components (screening, referral, and fertility preservation counseling) and map five strategies to these components that fit an adult and a children's context and bridge oncology and fertility practices. The strategies were screening using a best practice advisory, referral order, telehealth fertility counseling, provider audit and feedback, and provider education. All but provider education were EHR tools with embedded efficiencies. Conclusion: An implementation science approach systematically assessed oncofertility care and mapped strategies to provide a theory-based approach and scalable EHR tools to support wider dissemination