Revisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science

BACKGROUND: Evidence, in multiple forms, is a foundation of implementation science. For public health and clinical practice, evidence includes the following: type 1 evidence on etiology and burden; type 2 evidence on effectiveness of interventions; and type 3: evidence on dissemination and implementation (D&I) within context. To support a vision for development and use of evidence in D&I science that is more comprehensive and equitable (particularly for type 3 evidence), this article aims to clarify concepts of evidence, summarize ongoing debates about evidence, and provide a set of recommendations and tools/resources for addressing the how-to in filling evidence gaps most critical to advancing implementation science. MAIN TEXT: Because current conceptualizations of evidence have been relatively narrow and insufficiently characterized in our opinion, we identify and discuss challenges and debates about the uses, usefulness, and gaps in evidence for implementation science. A set of questions is proposed to assist in determining when evidence is sufficient for dissemination and implementation. Intersecting gaps include the need to (1) reconsider how the evidence base is determined, (2) improve understanding of contextual effects on implementation, (3) sharpen the focus on health equity in how we approach and build the evidence-base, (4) conduct more policy implementation research and evaluation, and (5) learn from audience and stakeholder perspectives. We offer 15 recommendations to assist in filling these gaps and describe a set of tools for enhancing the evidence most needed in implementation science. CONCLUSIONS: To address our recommendations, we see capacity as a necessary ingredient to shift the field\u27s approach to evidence. Capacity includes the push for implementation science where researchers are trained to develop and evaluate evidence which should be useful and feasible for implementers and reflect community or stakeholder priorities. Equally important, there has been inadequate training and too little emphasis on the pull for implementation science (e.g., training implementers, practice-based research). We suggest that funders and reviewers of research should adopt and support a more robust definition of evidence. By critically examining the evolving nature of evidence, implementation science can better fulfill its vision of facilitating widespread and equitable adoption, delivery, and sustainment of scientific advances

Making the connection between health equity and sustainability

Sustainability and health inequities are key challenges in public health and healthcare. Research suggests that only about half of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are sustained over time, and settings and populations experiencing systemic and structural barriers to health (e.g., poverty, racism, stigma, and discrimination) experience even greater challenges to sustainability. In this article, we argue that an enhanced focus on sustainability in the field of implementation science is critical in order to maximize the long-term health benefits and broader societal impacts of EBIs for all populations and settings. From an equity perspective, a focus on sustainability is particularly critical to prioritize among population sub-groups that have not historically received the benefits of health-related EBIs. We discuss how a health equity framing is essential to sustaining EBIs in under-resourced communities, and requires moving away from a deficit mindset that focuses on why EBIs are challenging to sustain, to one that focuses more on identifying and nurturing existing assets within individuals and communities to increase the likelihood that EBIs are sustained. We conclude with a discussion of future directions as well as recommendations and resources (e.g., frameworks, tools) to advance and make progress toward sustainability from a health equity mindset, including: (1) Actively planning early for sustainability alongside key partners; (2) Tracking progress toward enhancing sustainability and being accountable in doing so equitably for all settings and populations; and (3) Focusing on both equity and engagement early and often throughout the research process and all implementation phases

Assessing researchers\u27 capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to conduct equity-oriented dissemination and implementation research, an exploratory cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: A recent paradigm shift has led to an explicit focus on enhancing health equity through equity-oriented dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. However, the integration and bidirectional learning across these two fields is still in its infancy and siloed. This exploratory study aimed to examine participants\u27 perceived capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional survey distributed online from December 2020 to April 2021. Participants were recruited at either D&I or health disparities-oriented conferences, meetings, through social media, or personal outreach via emails. Informed by the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model (COM-B), the survey queried respondents about different aspects of engaging in and conducting equity-oriented D&I research. All analyses were conducted in SPSS Version 27.0. RESULTS: A total of 180 participants responded to the survey. Most participants were women (81.7%), white (66.1%), academics (78.9%), and faculty members (53.9%). Many reported they were advanced (36.7%) or advanced beginners (27.8%) in the D&I field, and a substantial proportion (37.8%) reported being novice in D&I research that focused on health equity. Participants reported high motivation (e.g., 62.8% were motivated to apply theories, models, frameworks for promoting health equity in D&I research), but low capability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research (e.g., 5% had the information needed for promoting health equity in D&I research). Most participants (62.2%) reported not having used measures to examine equity in their D&I projects, and for those who did use measures, they mainly used individual-level measures (vs. organizational- or structural-level measures). When asked about factors that could influence their ability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research, 44.4% reported not having the skills necessary, and 32.2% stated difficulties in receiving funding for equity-oriented D&I research. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings provide empirical insight into the perspectives of researchers from different backgrounds on what is needed to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. These data suggest the need for a multi-pronged approach to enhance the capability and opportunities for conducting equity-oriented D&I work, such as: training specifically in equity-oriented D&I, collaboration between D&I researchers with individuals with expertise and lived experience with health equity research, funding for equity-oriented D&I research, and recognition of the value of community engaged research in promotion packages

Decision-Making about the HPV Vaccine among Ethnically Diverse Parents: Implications for Health Communications

Objective: To describe parents' knowledge, attitudes, and decision-making with regard to obtaining the HPV vaccine for their daughters. Methods: White, Black, and Hispanic parents of daughters who were age eligible to receive the HPV vaccine (9–17 years) were recruited from community settings to participate in focus groups. Parents were asked about knowledge and awareness of HPV, decision-making about HPV vaccine, as well as preferred and actual sources of HPV information. Results: Seven focus groups (n = 64 participants) were conducted. Groups were segmented by gender (women = 72%) and race/ethnicity (Black = 59%; White = 23%; Hispanic = 19%). Prevalent themes included: insufficient information to make informed decisions; varied preferences for involvement in decision-making; concerns about vaccine safety; mistrust of medical providers and pharmaceutical companies; and mismatch between actual and preferred sources of information. Discussion: Improving communication between providers and caregivers and helping parents to access information necessary for informed decision-making, while alleviating concerns about vaccine safety, may help to improve vaccine acceptance

Teaching for implementation: A framework for building implementation research and practice capacity within the translational science workforce

Implementation science offers a compelling value proposition to translational science. As such, many translational science stakeholders are seeking to recruit, teach, and train an implementation science workforce. The type of workforce that will make implementation happen consists of both implementation researchers and practitioners, yet little guidance exists on how to train such a workforce. We-members of the Advancing Dissemination and Implementation Sciences in CTSAs Working Group-present the Teaching For Implementation Framework to address this gap. We describe the differences between implementation researchers and practitioners and demonstrate what and how to teach them individually and in co-learning opportunities. We briefly comment on educational infrastructures and resources that will be helpful in furthering this type of approach

Correction to: The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative dissemination and implementation (PRIDI) cycle: adapting to the dynamic nature of public health emergencies (and beyond)

No abstract was provided by the editors of this work

The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative dissemination and implementation (PRIDI) cycle: adapting to the dynamic nature of public health emergencies (and beyond)

Background Public health emergencies—such as the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic—accelerate the need for both evidence generation and rapid dissemination and implementation (D&I) of evidence where it is most needed. In this paper, we reflect on how D&I frameworks and methods can be pragmatic (i.e., relevant to real-world context) tools for rapid and iterative planning, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of evidence to address public health emergencies. The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative D&I (PRIDI) cycle The PRIDI cycle is based on a “double-loop” learning process that recognizes the need for responsiveness and iterative adaptation of implementation cycle (inner loop) to the moving landscapes, presented by the outer loops of emerging goals and desired outcomes, emerging interventions and D&I strategies, evolving evidence, and emerging characteristics and needs of individuals and contexts. Stakeholders iteratively evaluate these surrounding landscapes of implementation, and reconsider implementation plans and activities. Conclusion Even when the health system priority is provision of the best care to the individuals in need, and scientists are focused on development of effective diagnostic and therapeutic technologies, planning for D&I is critical. Without a flexible and adaptive process of D&I, which is responsive to emerging evidence generation cycles, and closely connected to the needs and priorities of stakeholders and target users through engagement and feedback, the interventions to mitigate public health emergencies (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic), and other emerging issues, will have limited reach and impact on populations that would most benefit. The PRIDI cycle is intended to provide a pragmatic approach to support planning for D&I throughout the evidence generation and usage processes

Barriers and facilitators influencing the sustainment of health behaviour interventions in schools and childcare services: a systematic review

Background Sustainment has been defined as the sustained use or delivery of an intervention in practice following cessation of external implementation support. This review aimed to identify and synthesise factors (barriers and facilitators) that influence the sustainment of interventions (policies, practices, or programmes) in schools and childcare services that address the leading risk factors of chronic disease. Methods Seven electronic databases and relevant reference lists were searched for articles, of any design, published in English, from inception to March 2020. Articles were included if they qualitatively and/or quantitatively reported on school or childcare stakeholders’ (including teachers, principals, administrators, or managers) perceived barriers or facilitators to the sustainment of interventions addressing poor diet/nutrition, physical inactivity, obesity, tobacco smoking, or harmful alcohol use. Two independent reviewers screened texts, and extracted and coded data guided by the Integrated Sustainability Framework, an existing multi-level sustainability-specific framework that assesses factors of sustainment. Results Of the 13,158 articles identified, 31 articles met the inclusion criteria (8 quantitative, 12 qualitative, 10 mixed-methods, and 1 summary article). Overall, 29 articles were undertaken in schools (elementary n=17, middle n=3, secondary n=4, or a combination n=5) and two in childcare settings. The main health behaviours targeted included physical activity (n=9), diet (n=3), both diet and physical activity (n=15), and smoking (n=4), either independently (n=1) or combined with other health behaviours (n=3). Findings suggest that the majority of the 59 barriers and 74 facilitators identified to impact on intervention sustainment were similar across school and childcare settings. Factors predominantly relating to the ‘inner contextual factors’ of the organisation including: availability of facilities or equipment, continued executive or leadership support present, and team cohesion, support, or teamwork were perceived by stakeholders as influential to intervention sustainment. Conclusions Identifying strategies to improve the sustainment of health behaviour interventions in these settings requires a comprehensive understanding of factors that may impede or promote their ongoing delivery. This review identified multi-level factors that can be addressed by strategies to improve the sustainment of such interventions, and suggests how future research might address gaps in the evidence base. Trial registration This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO: CRD42020127869 , Jan. 2020

A mixed-methods study of multi-level factors influencing mammography overuse among an older ethnically diverse screening population: implications for de-implementation

Background There is growing concern that routine mammography screening is overused among older women. Successful and equitable de-implementation of mammography will require a multi-level understanding of the factors contributing to mammography overuse. Methods This explanatory, sequential, mixed-methods study collected survey data (n= 52, 73.1% Hispanic, 73.1% Spanish-speaking) from women ≥70 years of age at the time of screening mammography, followed by semi-structured interviews with a subset of older women completing the survey (n=19, 63.2% Hispanic, 63.2% Spanish-speaking) and providers (n=5, 4 primary care, 1 obstetrics and gynecology) to better understand multi-level factors influencing mammography overuse and inform potential de-implementation strategies. We conducted a descriptive analysis of survey data and content analysis of qualitative interview data. Survey and interview data were examined separately, compared, integrated, and organized according to Norton and Chambers Continuum of Factors Influencing De-Implementation Process. Results Survey findings show that 87.2% of older women believe it is important to plan for an annual mammogram, 80.8% received a provider recommendation, and 78.9% received a reminder in the last 12 months to schedule a mammogram. Per interviews with older women, the majority were unaware of or did not perceive to have experienced overuse and intended to continue mammography screening. Findings from interviews with older women and providers suggest that there are multiple opportunities for older women to obtain a mammogram. Per provider interviews, almost all reported that reducing overuse was not viewed as a priority by the system or other providers. Providers also discussed that variation in mammography screening practices across providers, fear of malpractice, and monetary incentives may contribute to overscreening. Providers identified potential strategies to reduce overscreening including patient and provider education around harms of screening, leveraging the electronic health record to identify women who may receive less health benefit from screening, customizing system-generated reminder letters, and organizing workgroups to develop standard processes of care around mammography screening. Conclusions Multi-level factors contributing to mammography overuse are dynamic, interconnected, and reinforced. To ensure equitable de-implementation, there is a need for more refined and empirical testing of theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation with a strong patient-level component that considers the interplay between multilevel factors and the larger care delivery process