Global implementation research and applications最新文献

Invest in Kids (IIK) is a Denver, Colorado, USA-based intermediary organization that works to bridge the research-to-practice gap for programs that support Colorado's youngest children and their families. IIK supports evidence-based programs (EBPs) including three universal, prevention programs from The Incredible Years® (IY)-Dinosaur School (a classroom curriculum), Teacher Classroom Management (teacher professional development training), and Parent Program (parent training). IIK employs staff (the IIK-IY Team) to deliver implementation supports such as training, coaching, and managing implementation teams with professionals at schools and community agencies who deliver IY programs throughout Colorado. The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges and opportunities for practitioners using EBPs, and for the IIK-IY Team. The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded, known as the FRAME (Stirman et al., 2019), was identified as a useful tool for documenting information about COVID-19-related adaptations to local sites' delivery of the programs, IIK's implementation supports, and IIK's annual statewide evaluation of IY. This case study includes an in-depth description of the various adaptations made by the IIK-IY Team, highlighting specific examples that demonstrate how the FRAME can be used to support adaptations for numerous sites in a geographic region or state. This case study provides important lessons about what successful IY delivery and implementation supports looked like in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including a description of IY fidelity and program outcomes.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00048-1.

The 17-year time span between discovery and application of evidence in practice has become a unifying challenge for implementation science and translational science more broadly. Further, global pandemics and social crises demand timely implementation of rapidly accruing evidence to reduce morbidity and mortality. Yet speed remains an understudied metric in implementation science. Prevailing evaluations of implementation lack a temporal aspect, and current approaches have not yielded rapid implementation. In this paper, we address speed as an important conceptual and methodological gap in implementation science. We aim to untangle the complexities of studying implementation speed, offer a framework to assess speed of translation (FAST), and provide guidance to measure speed in evaluating implementation. To facilitate specification and reporting on metrics of speed, we encourage consideration of stakeholder perspectives (e.g., comparison of varying priorities), referents (e.g., speed in attaining outcomes, transitioning between implementation phases), and observation windows (e.g., time from intervention development to first patient treated) in its measurement. The FAST framework identifies factors that may influence speed of implementation and potential effects of implementation speed. We propose a research agenda to advance understanding of the pace of implementation, including identifying accelerators and inhibitors to speed.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa, many epidemiological or anthropological studies have been published. However, few studies have yet been conducted to understand the implementation of State interventions to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. In Senegal, the national response plan was planned before the country experienced its first official case of COVID-19 on 2 March 2020. This qualitative study, conducted in March and April 2021, based on 189 interviews, aims to understand how the national response has been implemented in several regions of Senegal. Implementation of the response to the pandemic was favoured by good preparation, capacity to adapt, responsiveness of health actors, and commitment for both the political and religious authorities. The implementation response was confronted by several constraining factors such as the coercive approach, the challenges of coordinating actors, and the lack of intersectoral response. The central level has sometimes used reflexivity processes to adapt its response, but it has remained highly politicized, centralized, directive, and with little involvement of civil society. In Senegal, the response to the pandemic has been implemented in a relatively political and directive, even coercive manner, without necessarily considering prior knowledge and the need to adapt it to local contexts and to involve civil society and community actors in the process.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00053-4.

Research has identified facilitators and barriers to implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Few studies have evaluated which factors persist among healthcare clinicians with extensive education and training on EBP implementation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine facilitators and barriers to EBP implementation across a national sample of specialty-prepared EBP mentors in healthcare settings. Healthcare clinicians participating in an immersive 5-day EBP knowledge and skill building program were invited to complete a follow-up survey 12 months later to report on implementation experiences. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided content analysis of responses. A force field analysis using Lewin's change theory was used to assign numerical 'weights' to factors. Eighty-four individuals reported facilitators and barriers to implementation. The majority occurred within the inner setting of the CFIR model. Facilitators were strong leadership engagement (n = 15), positive EBP culture (n = 9), and resources (n = 4). Barriers included lack of resources (n = 21), poor leadership engagement (n = 19), implementation climate (n = 17), lack of relative priority (n = 12), and organizational characteristics (n = 9). Respondents also identified simultaneous facilitators and barriers within the process domain of the CFIR model. The construct of stakeholder engagement was a barrier when absent from the implementation process (n = 23), yet was a strong facilitator when present (n = 23). Implementation in healthcare settings appears most effective when conducted by an interprofessional team with strong leadership, resources, stakeholder engagement, and positive EBP culture. When these same factors are absent, they remain persistent barriers to implementation, even among specialty-trained healthcare clinicians.

Supplementary information: The online version of this article (10.1007/s43477-022-00051-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We work at a large, urban children's advocacy center (CAC) that provides treatment and services to approximately 2000 children and families each year who have experienced child abuse and other forms of trauma. While the complexity and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on both physical and mental health are only beginning to be understood, families with histories of abuse and other traumatic experiences are particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of isolation due to the extended lockdown. When the COVID-19 pandemic was identified as a public health crisis, the team of providers at the CAC pivoted to meet the newly emerging needs of the children and families served. Tele-mental health practices (TMH) were immediately implemented that required a deep understanding of the imminent safety concerns related to conducting TMH when the client may not feel safe at home. Further, while most of the clients referred for services have experienced child abuse and/or other types of trauma, COVID-19 is its own potentially traumatic event that can further exacerbate an individual's lack of safety and vulnerability to trauma. The current paper provides an overview of the rapid implementation of TMH practices within a large, urban CAC setting. We share the specific tele-mental health practices and implementation strategies that were put into place because of COVID-19 and how they align with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, as well as recommendations for how agency leadership can better facilitate the implementation of innovative practices in similar settings.

Harmonizing measures across studies can facilitate comparisons and strengthen the science, but procedures for establishing common data elements are rarely documented. We detail a rigorous, 2-year process to harmonize measures across the Prevention And Treatment through a Comprehensive Care Continuum for HIV-affected Adolescents in Resource Constrained Settings (PATC³H) consortium, consisting of eight federally-funded studies. We created a repository of measured constructs from each study, classified and selected constructs for harmonization, and identified survey instruments. Measures were harmonized for implementation science, HIV prevention and care, demographics and sexual behavior, mental health and substance use, and economic assessment. Importantly, we present our harmonized implementation science constructs. A common set of implementation science constructs have yet to be recommended in the literature for low-to-middle-income countries despite increasing recognition of their importance to delivering and scaling up effective interventions. Drawing on RE-AIM (Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance) and the Implementation Outcomes Framework, items were harmonized for staff/administrators and study participants to measure reach, adoption, implementation, maintenance, feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and fidelity. The process undertaken to harmonize measures and the codified set of implementation science measures developed by our consortium can inform future data harmonization efforts, critical to strengthening the replication and generalizability of findings while facilitating collaborative research-especially in resource-limited settings. We conclude with recommendations for research consortia, namely ensuring representation from all study teams and research priorities; adopting a flexible, transparent, and systematic approach; strengthening the literature on implementation science harmonization; and being responsive to life events (e.g., COVID-19).

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00042-7.

Globally, mental illness and substance use disorders are the leading cause of disability and disease burden for young people. Orygen is an Australian youth mental health organisation with a mission to reduce the impact of mental ill health on young people, families and society, through research, clinical services, advocacy, and the design and delivery of youth mental health workforce and service development initiatives. Orygen is one of only a few known research and clinical centres with a dedicated knowledge translation division, which concentrates on growing the capacity of the systems, services, and professionals who support young people experiencing mental ill health. This paper provides a case study of the workforce development team within the Orygen knowledge translation, outlining how implementation science informs their work and how the division has adapted its model in the face of COVID-19. Since 2017, the team has delivered training to more than 4000 youth mental health workers across Australia, on the topics of trauma, psychosis, mood and anxiety disorders, brief interventions, cognition and other areas of youth mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic generated abrupt and dramatic changes to the delivery of workforce and service development initiatives in Australia due to significant restrictions to travel and in-person events. It also placed major delivery demands on youth mental health services. This paper outlines how the team at Orygen adapted their approach to youth mental health workforce development in response to COVID-19, offering reflections and future directions for implementation science that can support flexible models of support in a changing system.

Metering is fundamental in the efficient operation of electricity networks, as meters facilitate controlled usage and improve health and well-being. However, across the Global South, meters have often been found to be lacking or not fit for purpose. Therefore, this study sought to determine residents' perceptions and access to electricity metering across a community in Mumbai, with the goal of developing recommendations to support the implementation of meters in the future. Fifty semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone, with participants from different areas and socioeconomic classes, within Greater Mumbai. The sample consisted of 20 low-income, 20 middle-income, and 10 high-income participants. The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to inform the interview schedule and to organise the thematic analysis. Meter accessibility and location was variable across the participant groups, as was the education and awareness of metering technology. Socio-political factors were found to directly affect the use of meters, specifically in the low-income group. The high cost associated with metering was a prominent finding; with a preconception that introducing meters would only increase utility expenditure. Future work should focus around ensuring meters are easy to use, practical and accessible to all residents and supporting education programmes around how to use a meter and how they can reduce utility expenditure. The cost of meters should also be investigated, to establish that the costs, associated with introducing new meters, are not passed disproportionately to consumers.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00059-y.

As the demand for dissemination and implementation (D&I) research grows globally, there is a need for D&I capacity building in regions where D&I science is underrepresented. The Workshop on Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (WONDIRH) was aimed for participants in the Eastern Mediterranean region to (1) appreciate the complex process of bridging research and practice in a variety of real-world settings, and (2) develop research that balances rigor with relevance and employs study designs and methods appropriate for the complex processes involved in D&I. The present exploratory study investigates participants' satisfaction with the workshop, the enhancement of their self-rated confidence in D&I skills, as well as their intention to apply the learned content into practice. The workshop included four weekly 90-min virtual interactive training sessions in conjunction with open access content from the National Cancer Institute Training Institute in Implementation and Dissemination Research in Cancer (TIDIRC). We applied a one-group pre-post design for the evaluation of workshop. Participants were invited to self-rate their confidence in D&I competencies (15 items, pre and post workshop). At the end of the workshop, participants additionally were asked to rate their satisfaction (5 items, 1-5 scales), and their intention to apply the learned content into practice (4 items, 1-5 scales). Of the 77 workshop participants, 34 completed the evaluation. Confidence improved between pre- and post-workshop assessments in all 15 self-rated D&I competencies. Respondents were generally satisfied with the workshop (mean satisfaction range 3.82-4.26 across the 5 items) and endorsed intentions to apply workshop topics (mean intention range 4.03-4.35 across the 4 items). This initial workshop demonstrated the ability to attract and engage participants to enhance their confidence in D&I research competencies and skills and to build capacity in D&I research. Future efforts should consider offering targeted training for researchers at different stages and to clearly articulate learning objectives.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00067-y.