Jennifer Im, Erin Blakeney, Danae Dotolo, Anna Ungar, Rebecca Barton, Bryan J Weiner, Kathryn I Pollak, Elizabeth Nielsen, Lisa Hudson, Nancy Kentish-Barnes, Claire Creutzfeldt, Ruth A Engelberg, J Randall Curtis
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: February 2025
John Lin, Rachel L. Winer, Christina Bliss, Barsness, Jay Desai, Kristi Fordyce, Rahel Ghebre, Anisa M. Ibrahim, Sharif Mohamed, Timothy Ramer, Adam A. Szpiro, Bryan J. Weiner, Sophia Yohe, Rebekah Pratt
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: January 2025
Emma K Hendrix, Nicole L Henderson, Tanvi V Padalkar, Tara Kaufmann, Stacey A Ingram, D'Ambra N Dent, Chao-Hui Sylvia Huang, J Nicholas Odom, Bryan J Weiner, Doris Howell, Angela M Stover, Ethan M Basch, Chelsea McGowan, Jennifer Young Pierce, and Gabrielle B Rocque
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: December 2024
Patricia Mae G. Santos, Sierra Silverwood, Gita Suneja, Eric C. Ford, Nikhil G. Thaker, Jamie S. Ostroff, Bryan J. Weiner, and Erin F. Gillespie
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: December 2024
Harriette G.C. Van Spall, Laura Desveaux, Tracy Finch, Cara C. Lewis, George A. Mensah, Yves Rosenberg, Kavita Singh, Francois Venter, Bryan J. Weiner, Faiez Zannad
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: November 2024
Grace Umutesi, Bryan J Weiner, Lynda Oluoch, Elizabeth Bukusi, Maricianah Onono, Betty Njoroge, Lucy Mecca, Kenneth Ngure, Nelly R Mugo, Ruanne V Barnabas
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: November 2024
The World Health Organization recommends a single-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination schedule for girls and boys to accelerate progress toward cervical cancer elimination. We applied the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) within the context of HPV vaccination to assess the acceptability of a single-dose schedule among health-care professionals in Kenya.
A REDCap survey was developed using relevant Theoretical Framework of Acceptability domains and validated with health-care professionals. Descriptive analyses and multivariate Poisson regression were conducted to assess factors associated with increased acceptability. Free-text responses were analyzed using a rapid qualitative approach, and findings were presented using a joint display.
Among 385 responses, 74.2% of health-care professionals were female and 48.6% were nurses. On average, respondents had been in their position for 60 months, and one-third (33.2%) were based at level-4 facilities. The majority (75.84%) thought that giving a single-dose of the HPV vaccine to adolescent girls and young women was either acceptable or very acceptable. Qualitative findings highlighted that lack of information was the underlying reason for health-care professionals who were resistant, and most clinicians thought that a singled-dose schedule was less burdensome to clinicians and patients. Hospital directors had a non–statistically significantly lower acceptability likelihood than nurses (incident rate ratio = 0.93, 95% confidence interval = 0.45 to 1.71) and health-care professionals at urban facilities had a non–statistically significantly lower acceptability likelihood than clinicians in rural facilities (incident rate ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval = 0.83 to 1.13).
Although not statistically significant, predictors of increased acceptability provide information to tailor strategies to increase HPV vaccination coverage and accelerate progress toward cervical cancer elimination.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Kellie List, Peter Agamile, Didier Yélognissè Alia, Peter Cherutich, Kristen Danforth, John Kinuthia, Arianna Rubin Means, Irene Mukui, Nancy Ngumbau, Yanfang Su, Anjuli Dawn Wagner, Bryan J Weiner, and Sarah Masyuko
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: September 2024
Policy implementation science (IS) is defined here as generating knowledge and deploying implementation strategies to effectively adopt and integrate evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into policy designs and improve policy implementation and effectiveness (1–3). Most existing policy IS scholarly works originate from the Global North (United States, Canada, and Western Europe) and describe or evaluate strategies to increase the uptake of EBIs (4). The existing Global North-generated frameworks focus less on the critical resources needed to formulate and implement a policy in diverse settings. Current approaches to policy IS lack sufficient contextual nuance to be applicable to...[read more].
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Cara C. Lewis, Hannah E. Frank, Gracelyn Cruden, Bo Kim, Aubyn C. Stahmer, Aaron R. Lyon, Bianca Albers, Gregory A. Aarons, Rinad S. Beidas, Brian S. Mittman, Bryan J. Weiner, Nate J. Williams, Byron J. Powell & MNoE Group
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: September 2024
Implementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms—the processes responsible for change—is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.
Building on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: “What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?” The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.
From this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.
This research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Bryan J Weiner, Rosemary D Meza, Predrag Klasnja, Rebecca Lengnick-Hall, Gretchen J Buchanan, Aaron R Lyon, Kayne D Mettert, Marcella H Boynton, Byron J Powell, and Cara C Lewis
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: September 2024
Opinion leadership, educational outreach visiting, and innovation championing are commonly used strategies to address barriers to implementing innovations and evidence-based practices in healthcare settings. Despite voluminous research, ambiguities persist in how these strategies work and under what conditions they work well, work poorly, or work at all. The current paper develops middle-range theories to address this gap.
Conceptual articles, systematic reviews, and empirical studies informed the development of causal pathway diagrams (CPDs). CPDs are visualization tools for depicting and theorizing about the causal process through which strategies operate, including the mechanisms they activate, the barriers they address, and the proximal and distal outcomes they produce. CPDs also clarify the contextual conditions (i.e., preconditions and moderators) that influence whether, and to what extent, the strategy's causal process unfolds successfully. Expert panels of implementation scientists and health professionals rated the plausibility of these preliminary CPDs and offered comments and suggestions on them.
Theoretically, opinion leadership addresses potential adopters' uncertainty about likely consequences of innovation use (determinant) by promoting positive attitude formation about the innovation (mechanism), which results in an adoption decision (proximal outcome), which leads to innovation use (intermediate outcome). As this causal process repeats, penetration, or spread of innovation use, occurs (distal outcome). Educational outreach visiting addresses knowledge barriers, attitudinal barriers, and behavioral barriers (determinants) by promoting critical thinking and reflection about evidence and practice (mechanism), which results in behavioral intention (proximal outcome), behavior change (intermediate outcome), and fidelity, or guideline adherence (distal outcome). Innovation championing addresses organizational inertia, indifference, and resistance (determinants) by promoting buy-in to the vision, fostering a positive implementation climate, and increasing collective efficacy (mechanisms), which leads to participation in implementation activities (proximal outcome), initial use of the innovation with increasing skill (intermediate outcome) and, ultimately, greater penetration and fidelity (distal outcomes). Experts found the preliminary CPDs plausible or highly plausible and suggested additional mechanisms, moderators, and preconditions, which were used to amend the initial CPD.
The middle-range theories depicted in the CPDs furnish testable propositions for implementation research and offer guidance for selecting, designing, and evaluating these social influence implementation strategies in both research studies and practice settings.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Jennifer Velloza, Nomhle Ndimande-Khoza, Lisa Mills, Tessa Concepcion, Sanele Gumede, Hlukelo Chauke, Ruth Verhey, Dixon Chibanda, Sybil Hosek, Bryan J. Weiner, Connie Celum, Sinead Delany-Moretlwe
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: July 2024
Adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) who may benefit from HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) face high levels of common mental disorders (e.g. depression, anxiety). Common mental disorders can reduce PrEP adherence and increase HIV risk, yet mental health interventions have not been well-integrated into PrEP delivery.
We conducted a four-phase human-centered design process, from December 2020 to April 2022, to understand mental health challenges among AGYW in Johannesburg, South Africa and barriers to integrated mental health and PrEP services. In the “Discover” phase, we conducted in-depth interviews with AGYW and key informants (KIs) in Johannesburg. We conducted a rapid qualitative analysis, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to identify facilitators and barriers of integrated mental health and PrEP services and mapped barriers to potential implementation strategies. In the “Design” and “Build” phases, we conducted stakeholder workshops to iteratively adapt an evidence-based mental health intervention, the Friendship Bench, and refine implementation strategies for South African PrEP delivery settings. In the “Test” phase, we piloted our adapted Friendship Bench package.
Interviews with 70 Discover phase participants (48 AGYW, 22 KIs) revealed the importance of integrated mental health and PrEP services for South African AGYW. Interviewees described barriers and implementation strategies for mental health and PrEP services around the CFIR domains: intervention characteristics (e.g. challenges with AGYW “opening up”); outer Johannesburg setting (e.g. community stigma); inner clinic setting (e.g. judgmental healthcare providers); characteristics of counsellors (e.g. training gaps); and the implementation process (e.g. need for demand creation). The Design and Build workshops included 13 AGYW and 15 KIs. Implementation barriers related to the quality and accessibility of public-sector clinic services, lay counsellor training, and community education and demand creation activities were prioritized. This led to 12 key Friendship Bench adaptations and the specification of 10 implementation strategies that were acceptable and feasible in initial pilot testing with three AGYW.
Using a human-centered approach, we identified determinants and potential solutions for integrating mental health interventions within PrEP services for South African AGYW. This design process centered stakeholders’ perspectives, enabling rapid development of an adapted Friendship Bench intervention implementation package.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**