Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): a systematic review

Abstract

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.

Implementation of Implementation Science Knowledge: The Research‐Practice Gap Paradox

“…There are many analytical tools aimed at supporting researchers’ use of implementation science in their research endeavors (Simpson et al., ). When approaching the implementation knowledge field, phrases such as the following are frequently encountered:“Theories and frameworks enhance implementation research” and”inform study design and execution” (Tabak et al., , p. 6) or“Scholars seeking to study implementation have over 60 conceptual frameworks to guide their work” (Birken et al., , p. 2). The impression is that models and frameworks are developed to“help advance implementation science” (Damschroder et al., , p. 2).…”

A qualitative exploration of Australian eyecare professional perspectives on Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) care

“…Significant research has been conducted to understand the barriers to use of clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based practice by health professionals [18,60,61] and/or barriers to patients' access to care [19]. From this research a number of theories, models and frameworks including the well-known theoretical domains framework (TDF) [60] are available that can be applied to research such as that presented in the current study to help understand, explain, and address the gaps between research and practice in the area of AMD care.…”

Evaluation of a shared decision-making intervention for pediatric patients with asthma in the emergency department

“…We will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide the implementation evaluation and inform study design throughout the research process (pre-implementation, data collection, and analysis) [33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. This framework represents a flexible, comprehensive model which will be used to guide and evaluate the SDM implementation.…”