Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey

Abstract Background Theories provide a synthesizing architecture for implementation science. The underuse, superficial use, and misuse of theories pose a substantial scientific challenge for implementation science and may relate to challenges in selecting from the many theories in the field. Implementation scientists may benefit from guidance for selecting a theory for a specific study or project. Understanding how implementation scientists select theories will help inform efforts to develop such guidance. Our objective was to identify which theories implementation scientists use, how they use theories, and the criteria used to select theories. Methods We identified initial lists of uses and criteria for selecting implementation theories based on seminal articles and an iterative consensus process. We incorporated these lists into a self-administered survey for completion by self-identified implementation scientists. We recruited potential respondents at the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health and via several international email lists. We used frequencies and percentages to report results. Results Two hundred twenty-three implementation scientists from 12 countries responded to the survey. They reported using more than 100 different theories spanning several disciplines. Respondents reported using theories primarily to identify implementation determinants, inform data collection, enhance conceptual clarity, and guide implementation planning. Of the 19 criteria presented in the survey, the criteria used by the most respondents to select theory included analytic level (58%), logical consistency/plausibility (56%), empirical support (53%), and description of a change process (54%). The criteria used by the fewest respondents included fecundity (10%), uniqueness (12%), and falsifiability (15%). Conclusions Implementation scientists use a large number of criteria to select theories, but there is little consensus on which are most important. Our results suggest that the selection of implementation theories is often haphazard or driven by convenience or prior exposure. Variation in approaches to selecting theory warn against prescriptive guidance for theory selection. Instead, implementation scientists may benefit from considering the criteria that we propose in this paper and using them to justify their theory selection. Future research should seek to refine the criteria for theory selection to promote more consistent and appropriate use of theory in implementation science

Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide

Background:  Designing implementation research can be a complex and daunting task, especially for applied health researchers who have not received specialist training in implementation science. We developed the Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide to address this challenge and provide researchers with a systematic approach to designing implementation research. Methods:  A multi-method and multi-stage approach was employed. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel engaged in an iterative brainstorming and consensus-building process to generate core domains of the ImpRes tool, representing core implementation science principles and concepts that researchers should consider when designing implementation research. Simultaneously, an iterative process of reviewing the literature and expert input informed the development and content of the tool. Once consensus had been reached, specialist expert input was sought on involving and engaging patients/service users; and economic evaluation. ImpRes was then applied to 15 implementation and improvement science projects across the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, a research organisation in London, UK. Researchers who applied the ImpRes tool completed an 11-item questionnaire evaluating its structure, content and usefulness. Results:  Consensus was reached on ten implementation science domains to be considered when designing implementation research. These include implementation theories, frameworks and models, determinants of implementation, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and unintended consequences. Researchers who used the ImpRes tool found it useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking (median 5/5, IQR 4–5) and for improving the quality of implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–5) and agreed that it contained the key components that should be considered when designing implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–4). Qualitative feedback from researchers who applied the ImpRes tool indicated that a supplementary guide was needed to facilitate use of the tool. Conclusions:  We have developed a feasible and acceptable tool, and supplementary guide, to facilitate consideration and incorporation of core principles and concepts of implementation science in applied health implementation research. Future research is needed to establish whether application of the tool and guide has an effect on the quality of implementation research

Implementation of a knowledge mobilization model to prevent peripheral venous catheter-related adverse events: PREBACP study-a multicenter cluster-randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral venous catheters are the most commonly used invasive devices in hospitals worldwide. Patients can experience multiple adverse events during the insertion, maintenance, and management of these devices. Health professionals aim to resolve the challenges of care variability in the use of peripheral venous catheter through adherence to clinical practice guidelines. The aim of this cluster-randomized controlled trial is to determine the efficacy of a multimodal intervention on incidence of adverse events associated with the use of peripheral venous catheters in adult hospital patients. Additional aims are to analyze the fidelity of nurses and the relationship between contextual factors on the use of best available and the outcomes of the intervention. METHODS: Five public hospitals in the Spanish National Health System, with diverse profiles, including one university hospital and four second-level hospitals, will be included. In total, 20 hospitalization wards will be randomized for this study by ward to one of two groups. Those in the first group receive an intervention that lasts 12 months implementing evidence-based practice in healthcare related to peripheral catheters through a multimodal strategy, which will contain updated and poster protocols insertion, maintenance and removal of peripheral venous catheters, technologies applied to e-learning, feedback on the results, user and family information related to peripheral catheter, and facilitation of the best evidence by face-to-face training session. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of adverse events associated with the use of peripheral venous catheters is measured by assessing hospital records. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Nurses' adherence to clinical practice guidelines, clinical outcomes, and the cost of implementing the multimodal intervention. DISCUSSION: Clinical implementation is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon which requires a deep understanding of decision-making, knowledge mobilization, and sense making in routine clinical practice. Likewise, the inclusion of strategies that promote fidelity to recommendations through multicomponent and multimodal intervention must be encouraged. The use of a transfer model could counterbalance one of the greatest challenges for organizations, the evaluation of the impact of the implementation of evidence in the professional context through quality indicators associated with prevention and control of infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10438530 . Registered 20 March 2018

Creating and Breaking Habit in Healthcare Professional Behaviours to Improve Healthcare and Health

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) prescribe, provide advice, conduct examinations, perform surgical procedures, and engage in a range of clinical behaviours. Their clinical actions are characteristically performed repeatedly—sometimes multiple times per day—in the same physical locations with the same colleagues and patients, under constant time pressure, and competing demands. This repetition under pressure in a stable setting provides ideal circumstances for creating contingencies between physical and social cues and clinical actions. HCP behaviour provides an ideal setting in which to advance theory, methods, and interventions to better understand habit formation and habit reversal. Contemporary theoretical and methodological development in the psychology of habit has begun to be applied to understand and promote the formation, breaking, and replacement of habitual behaviour in HCPs. This chapter highlights key theoretical approaches, methods, and intervention techniques that have been applied to conceptualize, measure, develop, and break habit and automaticity in HCPs. These insights have the potential to synergistically contribute novel perspectives to the wider habit literature

Adaptation of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Interventions: A Model and Scoping Review of Key Concepts and Tools

Background: Safe water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) is important for health, livelihoods, and economic development, but WaSH programs have often underdelivered on expected health benefits. Underperformance has been attributed partly to poor ability to retain effectiveness following adaptation to facilitate WaSH programs' implementation in diverse contexts. Adaptation of WaSH interventions is common but often not done systematically, leading to poor outcomes. Models and frameworks from the adaptation literature have potential to improve WaSH adaptation to facilitate implementation and retain effectiveness. However, these models and frameworks were designed in a healthcare context, and WaSH interventions are typically implemented outside traditional health system channels. The purpose of our work was to develop an adaptation model tailored specifically to the context of WaSH interventions. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify key adaptation steps and identify tools to support systematic adaptation. To identify relevant literature, we conducted a citation search based on three recently published reviews on adaptation. We also conducted a systematic database search for examples of WaSH adaptation. We developed a preliminary model based on steps commonly identified across models in adaptation literature, and then tailored the model to the WaSH context using studies yielded by our systematic search. We compiled a list of tools to support systematic data collection and decision-making throughout adaptation from all included studies. Results and Conclusions: Our model presents adaptation steps in five phases: intervention selection, assessment, preparation, implementation, and sustainment. Phases for assessment through sustainment are depicted as iterative, reflecting that once an intervention is selected, adaptation is a continual process. Our model reflects the specific context of WaSH by including steps to engage non-health and lay implementers and to build consensus among diverse stakeholders with potentially competing priorities. We build on prior adaptation literature by compiling tools to support systematic data collection and decision-making, and we describe how they can be used throughout adaptation steps. Our model is intended to improve program outcomes by systematizing adaptation processes and provides an example of how systematic adaptation can occur for interventions with health goals but that are implemented outside conventional health system channels