Qualitative study on the implementation of professional pharmacy services in Australian community pharmacies using framework analysis

Abbreviations: BCT, Behavioural change techniques taxonomy; BCW, Behavioural change wheel; CFIR, Consolidated framework for implementation research; EPOC, Cochrane effective practice and organisation of care; FISpH, Framework for the implementation of services in pharmacy; GIF, Generic implementation framework; KPI, Key performance indicator; TDF, Theoretical domains frameworkBackground: Multiple studies have explored the implementation process and influences, however it appears there is no study investigating these influences across the stages of implementation. Community pharmacy is attempting to implement professional services (pharmaceutical care and other health services). The use of implementation theory may assist the achievement of widespread provision, support and integration. The objective was to investigate professional service implementation in community pharmacy to contextualise and advance the concepts of a generic implementation framework previously published. Methods: Purposeful sampling was used to investigate implementation across a range of levels of implementation in community pharmacies in Australia. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed using a framework methodology. Data was charted using implementation stages as overarching themes and each stage was thematically analysed, to investigate the implementation process, the influences and their relationships. Secondary analyses were performed of the factors (barriers and facilitators) using an adapted version of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and implementation strategies and interventions, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) discrete implementation strategy compilation. Results: Six stages emerged, labelled as development or discovery, exploration, preparation, testing, operation and sustainability. Within the stages, a range of implementation activities/steps and five overarching influences (pharmacys' direction and impetus, internal communication, staffing, community fit and support) were identified. The stages and activities were not applied strictly in a linear fashion. There was a trend towards the greater the number of activities considered, the greater the apparent integration into the pharmacy organization. Implementation factors varied over the implementation stages, and additional factors were added to the CFIR list and definitions modified/contextualised for pharmacy. Implementation strategies employed by pharmacies varied widely. Evaluations were lacking. Conclusions: The process of implementation and five overarching influences of professional services implementation in community pharmacy have been outlined. Framework analysis revealed, outside of the five overarching influences, factors influencing implementation varied across the implementation stages. It is proposed at each stage, for each domain, the factors, strategies and evaluations should be considered. The Framework for the Implementation of Services in Pharmacy incorporates the contextualisation of implementation science for pharmacy.The study was funded as part of a University of Technology Sydney (UTS) Research Excellence Scholarship (RES), comprising of an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) Scholarship funded by the Australian Government, plus a Top-up funded by the University of Technology Sydney, received from the primary author (JCM)

Development and testing of the Measure of Innovation-Specific Implementation Intentions (MISII) using Rasch measurement theory

© 2018 The Author(s). Background: Implementation is proposed to be a multiphase, multilevel process. After a period of exploration, an adoption decision is made, typically at the upper management or policy level. Nevertheless, movement through each of the subsequent phases of the implementation process involves clinicians or providers at the individual level to adopt the innovation and then change their behavior to use/deliver the innovation. Multiple behavioral change theories propose that intentions are a critical determinant of implementation behavior. However, there is a need for the development and testing of pragmatic measures of providers' intentions to use a specific innovation or evidence-based practice (EBP). Methods: Nine items were developed to assess providers' intentions to use a specific innovation or EBP. Motivational interviewing was the EBP in the study. Items were administered, as part of larger survey, to 179 providers across 38 substance use disorder treatment (SUDT) programs within five agencies in California, USA. Rasch analysis was conducted using RUMM2030 software to assess the items, their overall fit to the Rasch model, the response scale used, individual item fit, differential item functioning (DIF), and person separation. Results: Following a stepwise process, the scale was reduced from nine items to three items to increase the feasibility and acceptability of the scale while maintaining suitable psychometric properties. The three-item unidimensional scale showed good person separation (PSI =.872), no disordering of thresholds, and no evidence of uniform or non-uniform DIF. Rasch analysis supported the viability of the scale as a measure of implementation intentions. Conclusions: The Measure of Innovation-Specific Implementation Intentions (MISII) is a sound measure of providers' intentions to use a specific innovation or EBP. Future evaluation of convergent, divergent, and predictive validity are needed. The study also demonstrates the value of Rasch analysis for testing the psychometric properties of pragmatic implementation measures

Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): A systematic review

Background: Over 60 implementation frameworks exist. Using multiple frameworks may help researchers to address multiple study purposes, levels, and degrees of theoretical heritage and operationalizability; however, using multiple frameworks may result in unnecessary complexity and redundancy if doing so does not address study needs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) are both well-operationalized, multi-level implementation determinant frameworks derived from theory. As such, the rationale for using the frameworks in combination (i.e., CFIR + TDF) is unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to elucidate the rationale for using CFIR + TDF by (1) describing studies that have used CFIR + TDF, (2) how they used CFIR + TDF, and (2) their stated rationale for using CFIR + TDF. Methods: We undertook a systematic review to identify studies that mentioned both the CFIR and the TDF, were written in English, were peer-reviewed, and reported either a protocol or results of an empirical study in MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, or Google Scholar. We then abstracted data into a matrix and analyzed it qualitatively, identifying salient themes. Findings: We identified five protocols and seven completed studies that used CFIR + TDF. CFIR + TDF was applied to studies in several countries, to a range of healthcare interventions, and at multiple intervention phases; used many designs, methods, and units of analysis; and assessed a variety of outcomes. Three studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple study purposes. Six studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple conceptual levels. Four studies did not explicitly state their rationale for using CFIR + TDF. Conclusions: Differences in the purposes that authors of the CFIR (e.g., comprehensive set of implementation determinants) and the TDF (e.g., intervention development) propose help to justify the use of CFIR + TDF. Given that the CFIR and the TDF are both multi-level frameworks, the rationale that using CFIR + TDF is needed to address multiple conceptual levels may reflect potentially misleading conventional wisdom. On the other hand, using CFIR + TDF may more fully define the multi-level nature of implementation. To avoid concerns about unnecessary complexity and redundancy, scholars who use CFIR + TDF and combinations of other frameworks should specify how the frameworks contribute to their study. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD4201502761

Practice change in chronic conditions care: an appraisal of theories

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background Management of chronic conditions can be complex and burdensome for patients and complex and costly for health systems. Outcomes could be improved and costs reduced if proven clinical interventions were better implemented, but the complexity of chronic care services appears to make clinical change particularly challenging. Explicit use of theories may improve the success of clinical change in this area of care provision. Whilst theories to support implementation of practice change are apparent in the broad healthcare arena, the most applicable theories for the complexities of practice change in chronic care have not yet been identified. Methods We developed criteria to review the usefulness of change implementation theories for informing chronic care management and applied them to an existing list of theories used more widely in healthcare. Results Criteria related to the following characteristics of chronic care: breadth of the field; multi-disciplinarity; micro, meso and macro program levels; need for field-specific research on implementation requirements; and need for measurement. Six theories met the criteria to the greatest extent: the Consolidate Framework for Implementation Research; Normalization Process Theory and its extension General Theory of Implementation; two versions of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework and Sticky Knowledge. None fully met all criteria. Involvement of several care provision organizations and groups, involvement of patients and carers, and policy level change are not well covered by most theories. However, adaptation may be possible to include multiple groups including patients and carers, and separate theories may be needed on policy change. Ways of qualitatively assessing theory constructs are available but quantitative measures are currently partial and under development for all theories. Conclusions Theoretical bases are available to structure clinical change research in chronic condition care. Theories will however need to be adapted and supplemented to account for the particular features of care in this field, particularly in relation to involvement of multiple organizations and groups, including patients, and in relation to policy influence. Quantitative measurement of theory constructs may present difficulties

Testing the leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI) intervention in substance abuse treatment: A cluster randomized trial study protocol

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation represents a strategic change in organizations that requires effective leadership and alignment of leadership and organizational support across organizational levels. As such, there is a need for combining leadership development with organizational strategies to support organizational climate conducive to EBP implementation. The leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI) intervention includes leadership training for workgroup leaders, ongoing implementation leadership coaching, 360° assessment, and strategic planning with top and middle management regarding how they can support workgroup leaders in developing a positive EBP implementation climate. Methods: This test of the LOCI intervention will take place in conjunction with the implementation of motivational interviewing (MI) in 60 substance use disorder treatment programs in California, USA. Participants will include agency executives, 60 program leaders, and approximately 360 treatment staff. LOCI will be tested using a multiple cohort, cluster randomized trial that randomizes workgroups (i.e., programs) within agency to either LOCI or a webinar leadership training control condition in three consecutive cohorts. The LOCI intervention is 12months, and the webinar control intervention takes place in months 1, 5, and 8, for each cohort. Web-based surveys of staff and supervisors will be used to collect data on leadership, implementation climate, provider attitudes, and citizenship. Audio recordings of counseling sessions will be coded for MI fidelity. The unit of analysis will be the workgroup, randomized by site within agency and with care taken that co-located workgroups are assigned to the same condition to avoid contamination. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) will be used to analyze the data to account for the nested data structure. Discussion: LOCI has been developed to be a feasible and effective approach for organizations to create a positive climate and fertile context for EBP implementation. The approach seeks to cultivate and sustain both effective general and implementation leadership as well as organizational strategies and support that will remain after the study has ended. Development of a positive implementation climate for MI should result in more positive service provider attitudes and behaviors related to the use of MI and, ultimately, higher fidelity in the use of MI. Trial registration: This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03042832 ), 2 February 2017, retrospectively registered

Model for the evaluation of implementation programs and professional pharmacy services

© 2016 Elsevier Inc. Pharmacy practice and pharmaceutical care research of professional services has largely focused on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Research studies have been, for the most part, conducted in controlled conditions prior to full scale implementation. There appears to be a dearth of process and evaluation of implementation reported. Conducting implementation research or adding implementation measures to an impact study, adds external validity to service and patient outcomes. Evaluations are required for all aspects of implementation including indicators of movement through the implementation stages (formative and summative implementation process evaluation), measures of influencing factors (barriers and facilitators) and change in factors over time (implementation impact), assessment of strategies and/or the implementation program, and overall measures to generate a level of implementation (implementation outcomes). The level of implementation of a professional pharmacy service can be estimated from the level of service delivery (reach and fidelity) and level as a service provider (integration and strength of support in the service environment). The model may be used for evaluating professional pharmacy services and for evaluating implementation programs