Reporting on the Strategies Needed to Implement Proven Interventions: An Example From a “Real-World” Cross-Setting Implementation Study

Abstract

Objective To empirically demonstrate the use of a new framework for describing the strategies used to implement quality improvement interventions, and provide an example that others may follow. ‘Implementation strategies’ are the specific approaches, methods, structures, and resources used to introduce and encourage uptake of a given intervention’s components. Such strategies have not been regularly reported in descriptions of interventions’ effectiveness, or in assessments of how proven interventions are implemented in new settings. This lack of reporting may hinder efforts to successfully translate effective interventions into ‘real world’ practice. Methods Proctor and colleagues recently published a framework designed to standardize reporting on implementation strategies in the implementation science literature. We applied this framework to describe the strategies used to implement a single intervention in its original commercial care setting, and when implemented in community health centers from September 2010 through May 2015. Results Per Proctor’s framework, the target (clinic staff) and outcome (prescribing rates) remained the same across settings; the actor, action, temporality and dose were adapted to fit local context. The framework proved helpful in articulating which of the implementation strategies were kept constant and which were tailored to fit diverse settings, and simplified our reporting of their effects. Conclusion Researchers should consider consistently reporting this information, which could be crucial to the success or failure of implementing proven interventions effectively across diverse care settings.

Tracking implementation strategies: a description of a practical approach and early findings

“…what is the empirical, theoretical, or pragmatic justification for the choice of implementation strategy?). Applied examples of this approach demonstrate its utility in improving the clarity of implementation strategies and maximising the potential that they can be replicated in research and practice [ 33 , 34 ].…”

Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments

“…The impact of organizational supports for evidencebased decision making (EBDM) on mis-implementation of public health programs is not yet understood, though organizational structures and processes have been found to affect implementation of medical procedures and mental health services [7,8,20,27,28]. EBDM fosters implementation of effective programs and prevents misimplementation through use of the best available surveillance data and intervention evidence in setting priorities and selecting programs, application of systematic prioritization and program planning methods, community engagement, and evaluation to inform adaptation and implementation [29][30][31].…”

A Pragmatic Approach to Guide Implementation Evaluation Research: Strategy Mapping for Complex Interventions

“…Gold and colleagues ( 12 ) engaged in similar description of implementation strategies operationalized as part of a diabetes quality improvement intervention occurring in commercial and community healthcare settings. They found that, while the strategies utilized and outcome observed were constant across settings, specific components of the strategies used—including actor, action, temporality, and dose—were adapted to fit local contexts, thus underscoring the importance of flexibility in implementation ( 12 ). Most recently, Boyd and colleagues ( 13 ) coded implementation team meetings to characterize implementation strategies.…”