Background: Facilitation has been identified in the literature as a potentially key component of successful implementation. It has not, however, either been well-defined or well-studied. Significant questions remain about the operational definition of facilitation and about the relationship of facilitation to other interventions, especially to other change agent roles when used in multi-faceted implementation projects.Researchers who are part of the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) are actively exploring various approaches and processes, including facilitation, to enable implementation of best practices in the Veterans Health Administration health care system -the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. This paper describes a systematic, retrospective evaluation of implementation-related facilitation experiences within QUERI, a quality improvement program developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Methods:A post-hoc evaluation was conducted through a series of semi-structured interviews to examine the concept of facilitation across several multi-site QUERI implementation studies. The interview process is based on a technique developed in the field of education, which systematically enhances learning through experience by stimulating recall and reflection regarding past complex activities. An iterative content analysis approach relative to a set of conceptually-based interview questions was used for data analysis.Findings: Findings suggest that facilitation, within an implementation study initiated by a central change agency, is a deliberate and valued process of interactive problem solving and support that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and a supportive interpersonal relationship. Facilitation was described primarily as a distinct role with a number of potentially crucial behaviors and activities. Data further suggest that external facilitators were likely to use or integrate other implementation interventions, while performing this problem-solving and supportive role. Preliminary Conclusions: This evaluation provides evidence to suggest that facilitation could be considered a distinct implementation intervention, just as audit and feedback, educational outreach, or similar methods are considered to be discrete interventions. As such, facilitation should be well-defined and explicitly evaluated for its perceived usefulness within multi-intervention implementation projects. Additionally, researchers should better define the specific contribution of facilitation to the success of implementation in different types of projects, different types of sites, and with evidence and innovations of varying levels of strength and complexity. BackgroundImplementation of research findings into practice is a complex undertaking that has often fallen short of expectations. In part, this is due to the current lack of substantive knowledge regarding both individual implementation interventions and the interrelationship of multiple interventions used in m...

BackgroundThe Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, or PARIHS, is a conceptual framework that posits key, interacting elements that influence successful implementation of evidence-based practices. It has been widely cited and used as the basis for empirical work; however, there has not yet been a literature review to examine how the framework has been used in implementation projects and research. The purpose of the present article was to critically review and synthesize the literature on PARIHS to understand how it has been used and operationalized, and to highlight its strengths and limitations.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative, critical synthesis of peer-reviewed PARIHS literature published through March 2009. We synthesized findings through a three-step process using semi-structured data abstraction tools and group consensus.ResultsTwenty-four articles met our inclusion criteria: six core concept articles from original PARIHS authors, and eighteen empirical articles ranging from case reports to quantitative studies. Empirical articles generally used PARIHS as an organizing framework for analyses. No studies used PARIHS prospectively to design implementation strategies, and there was generally a lack of detail about how variables were measured or mapped, or how conclusions were derived. Several studies used findings to comment on the framework in ways that could help refine or validate it. The primary issue identified with the framework was a need for greater conceptual clarity regarding the definition of sub-elements and the nature of dynamic relationships. Strengths identified included its flexibility, intuitive appeal, explicit acknowledgement of the outcome of 'successful implementation,' and a more expansive view of what can and should constitute 'evidence.'ConclusionsWhile we found studies reporting empirical support for PARIHS, the single greatest need for this and other implementation models is rigorous, prospective use of the framework to guide implementation projects. There is also need to better explain derived findings and how interventions or measures are mapped to specific PARIHS elements; greater conceptual discrimination among sub-elements may be necessary first. In general, it may be time for the implementation science community to develop consensus guidelines for reporting the use and usefulness of theoretical frameworks within implementation studies.

This article describes the importance and role of 4 stages of formative evaluation in our growing understanding of how to implement research findings into practice in order to improve the quality of clinical care. It reviews limitations of traditional approaches to implementation research and presents a rationale for new thinking and use of new methods. Developmental, implementation-focused, progress-focused, and interpretive evaluations are then defined and illustrated with examples from Veterans Health Administration Quality Enhancement Research Initiative projects. This article also provides methodologic details and highlights challenges encountered in actualizing formative evaluation within implementation research.

This article describes the importance and role of 4 stages of formative evaluation in our growing understanding of how to implement research findings into practice in order to improve the quality of clinical care. It reviews limitations of traditional approaches to implementation research and presents a rationale for new thinking and use of new methods. Developmental, implementation-focused, progress-focused, and interpretive evaluations are then defined and illustrated with examples from Veterans Health Administration Quality Enhancement Research Initiative projects. This article also provides methodologic details and highlights challenges encountered in actualizing formative evaluation within implementation research.