BackgroundOrganizational readiness for change in healthcare settings is an important factor in successful implementation of new policies, programs, and practices. However, research on the topic is hindered by the absence of a brief, reliable, and valid measure. Until such a measure is developed, we cannot advance scientific knowledge about readiness or provide evidence-based guidance to organizational leaders about how to increase readiness. This article presents results of a psychometric assessment of a new measure called Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC), which we developed based on Weiner’s theory of organizational readiness for change.MethodsWe conducted four studies to assess the psychometric properties of ORIC. In study one, we assessed the content adequacy of the new measure using quantitative methods. In study two, we examined the measure’s factor structure and reliability in a laboratory simulation. In study three, we assessed the reliability and validity of an organization-level measure of readiness based on aggregated individual-level data from study two. In study four, we conducted a small field study utilizing the same analytic methods as in study three.ResultsContent adequacy assessment indicated that the items developed to measure change commitment and change efficacy reflected the theoretical content of these two facets of organizational readiness and distinguished the facets from hypothesized determinants of readiness. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in the lab and field studies revealed two correlated factors, as expected, with good model fit and high item loadings. Reliability analysis in the lab and field studies showed high inter-item consistency for the resulting individual-level scales for change commitment and change efficacy. Inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement statistics supported the aggregation of individual level readiness perceptions to the organizational level of analysis.ConclusionsThis article provides evidence in support of the ORIC measure. We believe this measure will enable testing of theories about determinants and consequences of organizational readiness and, ultimately, assist healthcare leaders to reduce the number of health organization change efforts that do not achieve desired benefits. Although ORIC shows promise, further assessment is needed to test for convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

BackgroundStrategies are central to the National Institutes of Health’s definition of implementation research as “the study of strategies to integrate evidence-based interventions into specific settings.” Multiple scholars have proposed lists of the strategies used in implementation research and practice, which they increasingly are classifying under the single term “implementation strategies.” We contend that classifying all strategies under a single term leads to confusion, impedes synthesis across studies, and limits advancement of the full range of strategies of importance to implementation. To address this concern, we offer a system for classifying implementation strategies that builds on Proctor and colleagues’ (2013) reporting guidelines, which recommend that authors not only name and define their implementation strategies but also specify who enacted the strategy (i.e., the actor) and the level and determinants that were targeted (i.e., the action targets).Main bodyWe build on Wandersman and colleagues’ Interactive Systems Framework to distinguish strategies based on whether they are enacted by actors functioning as part of a Delivery, Support, or Synthesis and Translation System. We build on Damschroder and colleague’s Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to distinguish the levels that strategies target (intervention, inner setting, outer setting, individual, and process). We then draw on numerous resources to identify determinants, which are conceptualized as modifiable factors that prevent or enable the adoption and implementation of evidence-based interventions. Identifying actors and targets resulted in five conceptually distinct classes of implementation strategies: dissemination, implementation process, integration, capacity-building, and scale-up. In our descriptions of each class, we identify the level of the Interactive System Framework at which the strategy is enacted (actors), level and determinants targeted (action targets), and outcomes used to assess strategy effectiveness. We illustrate how each class would apply to efforts to improve colorectal cancer screening rates in Federally Qualified Health Centers.ConclusionsStructuring strategies into classes will aid reporting of implementation research findings, alignment of strategies with relevant theories, synthesis of findings across studies, and identification of potential gaps in current strategy listings. Organizing strategies into classes also will assist users in locating the strategies that best match their needs.

BackgroundTheories 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsTwo 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%).ConclusionsImplementation 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.

BackgroundOver 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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsWe 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.ConclusionsDifferences 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 registrationPROSPERO CRD42015027615 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0534-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPublished descriptions of implementation strategies often lack precision and consistency, limiting replicability and slowing accumulation of knowledge. Recent publication guidelines for implementation strategies call for improved description of the activities, dose, rationale and expected outcome(s) of strategies. However, capturing implementation strategies with this level of detail can be challenging, as responsibility for implementation is often diffuse and strategies may be flexibly applied as barriers and challenges emerge. We describe and demonstrate the development and application of a practical approach to identifying implementation strategies used in research and practice that could be used to guide their description and specification.MethodsAn approach to tracking implementation strategies using activity logs completed by project personnel was developed to facilitate identification of discrete strategies. This approach was piloted in the context of a multi-component project to improve children’s access to behavioural health services in a county-based child welfare agency. Key project personnel completed monthly activity logs that gathered data on strategies used over 17 months. Logs collected information about implementation activities, intent, duration and individuals involved. Using a consensus approach, two sets of coders categorised each activity based upon Powell et al.’s (Med Care Res Rev 69:123–57, 2012) taxonomy of implementation strategies.ResultsParticipants reported on 473 activities, which represent 45 unique strategies. Initial implementation was characterised by planning strategies followed by educational strategies. After project launch, quality management strategies predominated, suggesting a progression of implementation over time. Together, these strategies accounted for 1594 person-hours, many of which were reported by the leadership team that was responsible for project design, implementation and oversight.ConclusionsThis approach allows for identifying discrete implementation strategies used over time, estimating dose, describing temporal ordering of implementation strategies, and pinpointing the major implementation actors. This detail could facilitate clear reporting of a full range of implementation strategies, including those that may be less observable. This approach could lead to a more nuanced understanding of what it takes to implement different innovations, the types of strategies that are most useful during specific phases of implementation, and how implementation strategies need to be adaptively applied throughout the course of a given initiative.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0175-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundTheories, models, and frameworks (TMF) are foundational for generalizing implementation efforts and research findings. However, TMF and the criteria used to select them are not often described in published articles, perhaps due in part to the challenge of selecting from among the many TMF that exist in the field. The objective of this international study was to develop a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide their implementation projects.MethodsImplementation scientists across the USA, the UK, and Canada identified and rated conceptually distinct categories of criteria in a concept mapping exercise. We then used the concept mapping results to develop a tool to help users select appropriate TMF for their projects. We assessed the tool’s usefulness through expert consensus and cognitive and semi-structured interviews with implementation scientists.ResultsThirty-seven implementation scientists (19 researchers and 18 practitioners) identified four criteria domains: usability, testability, applicability, and familiarity. We then developed a prototype of the tool that included a list of 25 criteria organized by domain, definitions of the criteria, and a case example illustrating an application of the tool. Results of cognitive and semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for the tool to (1) be as succinct as possible; (2) have separate versions to meet the unique needs of researchers versus practitioners; (3) include easily understood terms; (4) include an introduction that clearly describes the tool’s purpose and benefits; (5) provide space for noting project information, comparing and scoring TMF, and accommodating contributions from multiple team members; and (6) include more case examples illustrating its application. Interview participants agreed that the tool (1) offered them a way to select from among candidate TMF, (2) helped them be explicit about the criteria that they used to select a TMF, and (3) enabled them to compare, select from among, and/or consider the usefulness of combining multiple TMF. These revisions resulted in the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST), a paper and web-enabled tool that includes 16 specific criteria that can be used to consider and justify the selection of TMF for a given project. Criteria are organized within four categories: applicability, usability, testability, and acceptability.ConclusionsT-CaST is a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide implementation projects. Additionally, T-CaST has the potential to promote transparent reporting of criteria used to select TMF within and beyond the field of implementation science.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Executive SummaryMultidisciplinary tumor boards involve various providers (e.g., oncology physicians, nurses) in patient care. Although many Community Hospitals have local tumor boards that review all types of cases, many providers, particularly in rural areas and smaller institutions, still lack access to tumor boards specializing in a particular type of cancer (e.g., breast, gastrointestinal, hematologic). Videoconferencing technology can connect providers across geographic locations and institutions; however, virtual tumor board (VTB) programs using this technology are uncommon.In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of a new VTB program at UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, which connects community-based clinicians to UNC tumor boards. We used an embedded case study design with UNC VTB as the overarching case, comprised of multiple tumor boards representing different cancer types, each with individual clinician participants (our primary unit of analysis). Methods included observations, interviews, and surveys. § Corresponding Author: 135 Dauer Dr., CB # 7411, Department of Health Policy and Management, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7411, chris_shea@unc.edu, Phone: 919-966-1938, Fax: 919-966-6961. COMPETING INTERESTSThe authors report no competing interests.The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or AHRQ. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptOur findings suggest that participants were generally satisfied with the VTB. Cases presented at VTB were appropriate, sufficient information was available for discussion, and technology problems were not common. UNC clinicians viewed the VTB as a service to patients and colleagues and an opportunity for clinical trial recruitment. Community-based clinicians presenting at VTB valued the discussion, even if it simply confirmed their original treatment plan or did not yield consensus recommendations. However, barriers to participation for communitybased clinicians included timing of the VTB and lack of reimbursement. To maximize benefits of the VTB, barriers to participation should be addressed, scheduling and preparation processes optimized, and appropriate measures for evaluating impact identified. Keywordsvideoconferencing; health services accessibility; oncology service; hospital; interdisciplinary communication; patient care management BACKGROUNDMany health care systems across the world have adopted a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care. This approach, intended to facilitate communication between care providers by effectively using information (e.g., research findings) to improve quality and continuity of care, is important given the increasing complexity of managing cancer patients (Taylor et al., 2010). One venue for this approach is a multidisciplinary tumor board (or multidisciplinary cancer conference), where clinicians presen...

Participating in community-engaged dissemination and implementation (CEDI) research is challenging for a variety of reasons. Currently, there is not specific guidance or a tool available for researchers to assess their readiness to conduct CEDI research. We propose a conceptual framework that identifies detailed competencies for researchers participating in CEDI and maps these competencies to domains. The framework is a necessary step toward developing a CEDI research readiness survey that measures a researcher's attitudes, willingness, and self-reported ability for acquiring the knowledge and performing the behaviors necessary for effective community engagement. The conceptual framework for CEDI competencies was developed by a team of eight faculty and staff affiliated with a university's Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The authors developed CEDI competencies by identifying the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors necessary for carrying out commonly accepted CE principles. After collectively developing an initial list of competencies, team members individually mapped each competency to a single domain that provided the best fit. Following the individual mapping, the group held two sessions in which the sorting preferences were shared and discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. During this discussion, modifications to wording of competencies and domains were made as needed. The team then engaged five community stakeholders to review and modify the competencies and domains. The CEDI framework consists of 40 competencies organized into nine domains: perceived value of CE in D&I research, introspection and openness, knowledge of community characteristics, appreciation for stakeholder's experience with and attitudes toward research, preparing the partnership for collaborative decision-making, collaborative planning for the research design and goals, communication effectiveness, equitable distribution of resources and credit, and sustaining the partnership. Delineation of CEDI competencies advances the broader CE principles and D&I research goals found in the literature and facilitates development of readiness assessments tied to specific training resources for researchers interested in conducting CEDI research.