Background This paper describes the process and results of a refinement of a framework to characterize modifications to interventions. The original version did not fully capture several aspects of modification and adaptation that may be important to document and report. Additionally, the earlier framework did not include a way to differentiate cultural adaptation from adaptations made for other reasons. Reporting additional elements will allow for a more precise understanding of modifications, the process of modifying or adapting, and the relationship between different forms of modification and subsequent health and implementation outcomes. Discussion We employed a multifaceted approach to develop the updated FRAME involving coding documents identified through a literature review, rapid coding of qualitative interviews, and a refinement process informed by multiple stakeholders. The updated FRAME expands upon Stirman et al.’s original framework by adding components of modification to report: (1) when and how in the implementation process the modification was made, (2) whether the modification was planned/proactive (i.e., an adaptation) or unplanned/reactive, (3) who determined that the modification should be made, (4) what is modified, (5) at what level of delivery the modification is made, (6) type or nature of context or content-level modifications, (7) the extent to which the modification is fidelity-consistent, and (8) the reasons for the modification, including (a) the intent or goal of the modification (e.g., to reduce costs) and (b) contextual factors that influenced the decision. Methods of using the framework to assess modifications are outlined, along with their strengths and weaknesses, and considerations for research to validate these measurement strategies. Conclusion The updated FRAME includes consideration of when and how modifications occurred, whether it was planned or unplanned, relationship to fidelity, and reasons and goals for modification. This tool that can be used to support research on the timing, nature, goals and reasons for, and impact of modifications to evidence-based interventions.

Background: Research has generated valuable knowledge in identifying, understanding, and intervening to address inequities in the delivery of healthcare, yet these inequities persist. The best available interventions, programs and policies designed to address inequities in healthcare are not being adopted in routine practice settings. Implementation science can help address this gap by studying the factors, processes, and strategies at multiple levels of a system of care that influence the uptake, use, and the sustainability of these programs for vulnerable populations. We propose that an equity lens can help integrate the fields of implementation science and research that focuses on inequities in healthcare delivery. Main text: Using Proctor et al.' (12) framework as a case study, we reframed five elements of implementation science to study inequities in healthcare. These elements include: 1) focus on reach from the very beginning; 2) design and select interventions for vulnerable populations and low-resource communities with implementation in mind; 3) implement what works and develop implementation strategies that can help reduce inequities in care; 4) develop the science of adaptations; and 5) use an equity lens for implementation outcomes. Conclusions: The goal of this paper is to continue the dialogue on how to critically infuse an equity approach in implementation studies to proactively address healthcare inequities in historically underserved populations. Our examples provide ways to operationalize how we can blend implementation science and healthcare inequities research.

The cultural tailoring of interventions to reach underserved groups has moved from descriptive and proscriptive models to their application with existing evidence based treatments. To date few published examples illustrate the process of cultural adaptation. The current paper documents the adaptation of an evidence based parent training intervention, Parent Management Training-Oregon Model (PMTO™), for Spanish-speaking Latino parents using both process (Domenech Rodríguez and Wieling in Voices of color: first-person accounts of ethnic minority therapists, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2004) and content (Bernal et al. in J Abnorm Child Psychol 23:67-82, 1995) models. The adaptation took place in stages: a pilot study to ensure feasibility, focus groups to establish appropriate format and goals, and a test of the intervention. Throughout the process the treatment manual was treated as a living document. Changes were applied and documented as the team developed improvements for the adaptation. The present discussion details both process adaptations, (e.g., engaging the treatment developer, community leaders, and parents, and decentering the manual), and content adaptations, (e.g., shaping the appropriateness of language, persons, metaphors, concepts, contexts, methods, and goals). The current research provides support for the idea that cultural adaptations can improve service delivery to diverse groups and can be conducted systematically with documentation for replication purposes. Suggestions for improving the empirical measurement and documentation of the adaptation process are included.

Background Implementation strategies are necessary to ensure that evidence-based practices are successfully incorporated into routine clinical practice. Such strategies, however, are frequently modified to fit local populations, settings, and contexts. While such modifications can be crucial to implementation success, the literature on documenting and evaluating them is virtually nonexistent. In this paper, we therefore describe the development of a new framework for documenting modifications to implementation strategies. Discussion We employed a multifaceted approach to developing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS), incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives. Development steps included presentations of initial versions of the FRAME-IS to solicit structured feedback from individual implementation scientists (“think-aloud” exercises) and larger, international groups of researchers. The FRAME-IS includes core and supplementary modules to document modifications to implementation strategies: what is modified, the nature of the modification (including the relationship to core elements or functions), the primary goal and rationale for the modification, timing of the modification, participants in the modification decision-making process, and how widespread the modification is. We provide an example of application of the FRAME-IS to an implementation project and provide guidance on how it may be used in future work. Conclusion Increasing attention is being given to modifications to evidence-based practices, but little work has investigated modifications to the implementation strategies used to implement such practices. To fill this gap, the FRAME-IS is meant to be a flexible, practical tool for documenting modifications to implementation strategies. Its use may help illuminate the pivotal processes and mechanisms by which implementation strategies exert their effects.

BackgroundRacial and ethnic disparities in the United States exist along the entire continuum of mental health care, from access and use of services to the quality and outcomes of care. Efforts to address these inequities in mental health care have focused on adapting evidence-based treatments to clients’ diverse cultural backgrounds. Yet, like many evidence-based treatments, culturally adapted interventions remain largely unused in usual care settings. We propose that a viable avenue to address this critical question is to create a dialogue between the fields of implementation science and cultural adaptation. In this paper, we discuss how integrating these two fields can make significant contributions to reducing racial and ethnic disparities in mental health care.DiscussionThe use of cultural adaptation models in implementation science can deepen the explicit attention to culture, particularly at the client and provider levels, in implementation studies making evidence-based treatments more responsive to the needs and preferences of diverse populations. The integration of both fields can help clarify and specify what to adapt in order to achieve optimal balance between adaptation and fidelity, and address important implementation outcomes (e.g., acceptability, appropriateness). A dialogue between both fields can help clarify the knowledge, skills and roles of who should facilitate the process of implementation, particularly when cultural adaptations are needed. The ecological perspective of implementation science provides an expanded lens to examine how contextual factors impact how treatments (adapted or not) are ultimately used and sustained in usual care settings. Integrating both fields can also help specify when in the implementation process adaptations may be considered in order to enhance the adoption and sustainability of evidence-based treatments.SummaryImplementation science and cultural adaptation bring valuable insights and methods to how and to what extent treatments and/or context should be customized to enhance the implementation of evidence-based treatments across settings and populations. Developing a two-way street between these two fields can provide a better avenue for moving the best available treatments into practice and for helping to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in mental health care.