Skip to content

✪ Using FRAME to characterize provider-identified adaptations to a stepped care intervention for adolescents and youth living with HIV in Kenya: a mixed methods approach

Authors:

Nok Chhun, Dorothy Oketch, Kawango Agot, Dorothy I. Mangale, Jacinta Badia, James Kibugi, Wenwen Jiang, Mary Kirk, Barbra A. Richardson, Pamela K. Kohler, Grace John-Stewart & Kristin Beima-Sofie

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: July 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Journal of the International AIDS Society

Abstract:

Introduction

The Data-informed Stepped Care (DiSC) study is a cluster-randomized trial implemented in 24 HIV care clinics in Kenya, aimed at improving retention in care for adolescents and youth living with HIV (AYLHIV). DiSC is a multi-component intervention that assigns AYLHIV to different intensity (steps) of services according to risk. We used the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) to characterize provider-identified adaptations to the implementation of DiSC to optimize uptake and delivery, and determine the influence on implementation outcomes.

Methods

Between May and December 2022, we conducted continuous quality improvement (CQI) meetings with providers to optimize DiSC implementation at 12 intervention sites. The meetings were guided by plan-do-study-act processes to identify challenges during early phase implementation and propose targeted adaptations. Meetings were audio-recorded and analysed using FRAME to categorize the level, context and content of planned adaptations and determine if adaptations were fidelity consistent. Providers completed surveys to quantify perceptions of DiSC acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility. Mixed effects linear regression models were used to evaluate these implementation outcomes over time.

Results

Providers participated in eight CQI meetings per facility over a 6-month period. A total of 65 adaptations were included in the analysis. The majority focused on optimizing the integration of DiSC within the clinic (83%, n = 54), and consisted of improving documentation, addressing scheduling challenges and improving clinic workflow. Primary reasons for adaptation were to align delivery with AYLHIV needs and preferences and to increase reach among AYLHIV: with reminder calls to AYLHIV, collaborating with schools to ensure AYLHIV attended clinic appointments and addressing transportation challenges. All adaptations to optimize DiSC implementation were fidelity-consistent. Provider perceptions of implementation were consistently high throughout the process, and on average, slightly improved each month for intervention acceptability (β = 0.011, 95% CI: 0.002, 0.020, p = 0.016), appropriateness (β = 0.012, 95% CI: 0.007, 0.027, p<0.001) and feasibility (β = 0.013, 95% CI: 0.004, 0.022, p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Provider-identified adaptations targeted improved integration into routine clinic practices and aimed to reduce barriers to service access unique to AYLHIV. Characterizing types of adaptations and adaptation rationale may enrich our understanding of the implementation context and improve abilities to tailor implementation strategies when scaling to new settings.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Integrating a mental health intervention into PrEP services for South African young women: a human-centered implementation research approach to intervention development

Authors:

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.

✪ Open Access

Published: July 2024

Read the full text open access in the Journal of the International AIDS Society

Abstract:

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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**

✪ Use of concept mapping to inform a participatory engagement approach for implementation of evidence-based HPV vaccination strategies in safety-net clinics

Authors:

Jennifer Tsui, Michelle Shin, Kylie Sloan, Thomas I. Mackie, Samantha Garcia, Anne E. Fehrenbacher, Benjamin F. Crabtree & Lawrence A. Palinkas

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: June 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Multiple evidence-based strategies (EBS) for promoting HPV vaccination exist. However, adolescent HPV vaccination rates remain below target levels in communities at high risk for HPV-associated cancers and served by safety-net clinics. Participatory engaged approaches are needed to leverage the expertise of community and clinical partners in selecting EBS relevant to their local context. We engaged concept mapping as a method to inform the adoption and adaptation of EBS that seeks to empower implementation partners to prioritize, select, and ultimately implement context-relevant EBS for HPV vaccination.

Methods

Using 38 EBS statements generated from qualitative interviews and national HPV vaccine advocacy sources, we conducted a modified concept mapping activity with partners internal to safety-net clinics and external community members in two study sites of a larger implementation study (Greater Los Angeles and New Jersey), to sort EBS into clusters and rate each EBS by importance and feasibility for increasing HPV vaccination within safety-net clinics. Concept mapping findings (EBS statement ratings, ladder graphs and go-zones) were shared with leaders from a large federally qualified health center (FQHC) system (focusing on three clinic sites), to select and implement EBS over 12 months.

Results

Concept mapping participants (n=23) sorted and rated statements, resulting in an eight-cluster solution: 1) Community education and outreach; 2) Advocacy and policy; 3) Data access/quality improvement monitoring; 4) Provider tracking/audit and feedback; 5) Provider recommendation/communication; 6) Expanding vaccine access; 7) Reducing missed opportunities; and 8) Nurse/staff workflow and training. The FQHC partner then selected to intervene on eight of 17 EBS statements in the “go-zone” for action, with three from “reducing missed opportunities,” two from “nurse/staff workflow and training,” and one each from “provider tracking/audit and feedback,” “provider recommendation/communication,” and “expanding vaccine access,” which the research team addressed through the implementation of three multi-level intervention strategies (e.g., physician communication training, staff training and workflow assessment, audit and feedback of clinic processes).

Conclusions

Concept mapping provided a powerful participatory approach to identify multilevel EBS for HPV vaccination relevant to the local safety-net clinic context, particularly when several strategies exist, and prioritization is necessary. This study demonstrates how a clinic system benefited directly from the ratings and prioritization of EBS by multilevel clinic and community partners within the broader safety-net clinic context to identify and adapt prioritized solutions needed to advance HPV vaccine equity.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Development of a method for Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI): a modified Delphi study

Authors:

Stephanie K. Brewer, Catherine M. Corbin, Ana A. Baumann, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Janine M. Jones, Michael D. Pullmann, Aaron R. Lyon & MODIFI Expert Panel

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: June 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources.

Method

MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability and inclusion (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis.

Results

In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application.

Discussion

MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.

Contributions to the literature
  • Adaptation of evidence-based practices, programs, and treatments is often needed to ensure successful implementation. However, existing theories/models/frameworks do not outline concrete adaptation steps that are feasible for real-world settings.
  • We created a resource-efficient method (MODIFI) for developing and assessing intervention adaptations in local settings. This method was iteratively developed through a mixed-methods modified Delphi process, which resulted in consensus among experts in implementation science and practice.
  • MODIFI leverages human centered design techniques and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers in applied settings, filling a crucial gap in the research to practice pipeline.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Development of a method for Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI): a modified Delphi study

Authors:

Stephanie K. Brewer, Catherine M. Corbin, Ana A. Baumann, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Janine M. Jones, Michael D. Pullmann, Aaron R. Lyon & MODIFI Expert Panel

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: June 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Intervention adaptation is often necessary to improve the fit between evidence-based practices/programs and implementation contexts. Existing frameworks describe intervention adaptation processes but do not provide detailed steps for prospectively designing adaptations, are designed for researchers, and require substantial time and resources to complete. A pragmatic approach to guide implementers through developing and assessing adaptations in local contexts is needed. The goal of this project was to develop Making Optimal Decisions for Intervention Flexibility during Implementation (MODIFI), a method for intervention adaptation that leverages human centered design methods and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers working in applied settings with limited time and resources.

Method

MODIFI was iteratively developed via a mixed-methods modified Delphi process. Feedback was collected from 43 implementation research and practice experts. Two rounds of data collection gathered quantitative ratings of acceptability and inclusion (Round 1) and feasibility (Round 2), as well as qualitative feedback regarding MODIFI revisions analyzed using conventional content analysis.

Results

In Round 1, most participants rated all proposed components as essential but identified important avenues for revision which were incorporated into MODIFI prior to Round 2. Round 2 emphasized feasibility, where ratings were generally high and fewer substantive revisions were recommended. Round 2 changes largely surrounded operationalization of terms/processes and sequencing of content. Results include a detailed presentation of the final version of the three-step MODIFI method (Step 1: Learn about the users, local context, and intervention; Step 2: Adapt the intervention; Step 3: Evaluate the adaptation) along with a case example of its application.

Discussion

MODIFI is a pragmatic method that was developed to extend the contributions of other research-based adaptation theories, models, and frameworks while integrating methods that are tailored to the needs of intervention implementers. Guiding teams to tailor evidence-based interventions to their local context may extend for whom, where, and under what conditions an intervention can be effective.

Contributions to the literature
  • Adaptation of evidence-based practices, programs, and treatments is often needed to ensure successful implementation. However, existing theories/models/frameworks do not outline concrete adaptation steps that are feasible for real-world settings.
  • We created a resource-efficient method (MODIFI) for developing and assessing intervention adaptations in local settings. This method was iteratively developed through a mixed-methods modified Delphi process, which resulted in consensus among experts in implementation science and practice.
  • MODIFI leverages human centered design techniques and is tailored to the needs of intervention implementers in applied settings, filling a crucial gap in the research to practice pipeline.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Inter-organizational alignment and implementation outcomes in integrated mental healthcare for children and adolescents: a cross-sectional observational study

Authors:

Yanchen Zhang, Madeline Larson, Mark G. Ehrhart, Kevin King, Jill Locke, Clayton R. Cook, & Aaron R. Lyon

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: May 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementaion Science

Abstract:

Background

Integrated care involves care provided by a team of professionals, often in non-traditional settings. A common example worldwide is integrated school-based mental health (SBMH), which involves externally employed clinicians providing care at schools. Integrated mental healthcare can improve the accessibility and efficiency of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for vulnerable populations suffering from fragmented traditional care. However, integration can complicate EBP implementation due to overlapping organizational contexts, diminishing the public health impact. Emerging literature suggests that EBP implementation may benefit from the similarities in the implementation context factors between the different organizations in integrated care, which we termed inter-organizational alignment (IOA). This study quantitatively explored whether and how IOA in general and implementation context factors are associated with implementation outcomes in integrated SBMH.

Methods

SBMH clinicians from community-based organizations (CBOs; nclinician = 27) and their proximal student-support school staff (nschool = 99) rated their schools and CBOs (clinician only) regarding general (organizational culture and molar climate) and implementation context factors (Implementation Climate and Leadership), and nine common implementation outcomes (e.g., treatment integrity, service access, acceptability). The levels of IOA were estimated by intra-class correlations (ICCs). We fitted multilevel models to estimate the standalone effects of context factors from CBOs and schools on implementation outcomes. We also estimated the 2-way interaction effects between CBO and school context factors (i.e., between-setting interdependence) on implementation outcomes.

Results

The IOA in general context factors exceeded those of implementation context factors. The standalone effects of implementation context factors on most implementation outcomes were larger than those of general context factors. Similarly, implementation context factors between CBOs and schools showed larger 2-way interaction effects on implementation outcomes than general context factors.

Conclusions

This study preliminarily supported the importance of IOA in context factors for integrated SBMH. The findings shed light on how IOA in implementation and general context factors may be differentially associated with implementation outcomes across a broad array of integrated mental healthcare settings.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ “A problem shared is a problem solved:” integrating human-centered design and implementation science to optimize lay counselor supervision in Western Kenya

Authors:

Noah S. Triplett, Anne Mbwayo, Sharon Kiche, Enoch Sackey, Rashed AlRasheed, Daisy Anyango Okoth, Omariba Anne Nyaboke, Cyrilla Amanya & Shannon Dorsey

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: May 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Social Science and Medicine - Mental Health

Abstract:

Implementation science and human-centered design (HCD) offer useful frameworks and methods for considering and designing for individuals' needs and preferences when implementing new interventions or technologies in global health. When used in tandem, the two approaches may blend creative and partnered research methods with a focus on the factors necessary to design, implement, and sustain interventions. However, research is needed that describes the process of blending these two approaches and explores the experiences of community partners. This study builds from a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in Western Kenya, wherein teachers and community health volunteers have been trained to provide trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT). Mobile phones emerged as a tool to supervise lay counselors from afar; however, their use was characterized by unique challenges. Informed by human-centered design and implementation science, we first engaged lay counselors (n = 24) and supervisors (n = 3) in individual semi-structured interviews then hosted an in-person participatory workshop to “co-design” solutions to optimize the use of mobile phone supervision. Lay counselors participated in focus group discussions regarding their experiences in the workshop. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. We describe our approach as well as focus group discussion results. Counselors felt the workshop was a valuable experience to learn new strategies from their colleagues, and they enjoyed the “collaborative spirit” that emerged as they worked together. Counselors felt that varying small and large group discussions fostered participation by creating opportunities for more people to engage and share their thoughts. Counselors suggested the approach be improved by providing more tangible materials (e.g., hand-outs) and more closely following a schedule of activities. It is important to also center stakeholders’ experiences as partners in the research process. Though counselors largely expressed positive sentiments, they also shared valuable suggestions for how to improve participatory research practices in the future.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Acceptability and feasibility of policy implementation strategies for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services

Authors:

Jonathan Purtle, Nicole A. Stadnick, Megan Wynecoop, Sarah C. Walker, Eric J. Bruns, & Gregory A. Aarons

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: April 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Frontiers in Health Services

Abstract:

Background

This study's aims are to: (1) Compare the acceptability and feasibility of five types of implementation strategies that could be deployed to increase the reach of evidence-based practices (EBPs) with revenue from policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services, and (2) Illustrate how definitions of implementation strategies and measures of acceptability and feasibility can be used in policy-focused implementation science research.

Methods

Web-based surveys of public agency and community organization professionals involved with earmarked tax policy implementation were completed in 2022–2023 (N = 211, response rate = 24.9%). Respondents rated the acceptability and feasibility of five types of implementation strategies (dissemination, implementation process, integration, capacity-building, and scale-up). Aggregate acceptability and feasibility scores were calculated for each type of strategy (scoring range 4–20). Analyses of variance compared scores across strategies and between organizational actor types.

Findings

For acceptability, capacity-building strategies had the highest rating (M = 16.3, SD = 3.0), significantly higher than each of the four other strategies, p ≤ . 004), and scale-up strategies had the lowest rating (M = 15.6). For feasibility, dissemination strategies had the highest rating (M = 15.3, significantly higher than three of the other strategies, p ≤ .002) and scale-up strategies had the lowest rating (M = 14.4).

Conclusions

Capacity-building and dissemination strategies may be well-received and readily deployed by policy implementers to support EBPs implementation with revenue from taxes earmarked for behavioral health services. Adapting definitions of implementation strategies for policy-focused topics, and applying established measures of acceptability and feasibility to these strategies, demonstrates utility as an approach to advance research on policy-focused implementation strategies.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Helping Educational Leaders Mobilize Evidence (HELM): The iterative redesign of the Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI) intervention for use in schools

Authors:

Jill Locke, Cathy M. Corbin, Vaughan K. Collins, Mark G. Ehrhart, Roger Goosey, Kurt Hatch, Christine Espeland, Clayton R. Cook, and Aaron R. Lyon

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: April 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Research and Practice

Abstract:

Background

Few “intervention agnostic” strategies have been developed that can be applied to the broad array of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in schools. This paper describes two studies that reflect the initial iterative redesign phases of an effective leadership-focused implementation strategy—Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI)—to ensure its acceptability, feasibility, contextual appropriateness, and usability when used in elementary schools. Our redesigned strategy—Helping Educational Leaders Mobilize Evidence (HELM)—is designed to improve principals’ use of strategic implementation leadership to support the adoption and high-fidelity delivery of a universal EBP to improve student outcomes.

Method

In Study 1, focus groups were conducted (n = 6) with 54 district administrators, principals, and teachers. Stakeholders provided input on the appropriateness of original LOCI components to maximize relevance and utility in schools. Transcripts were coded using conventional content analysis. Key themes referencing low appropriateness were summarized to inform LOCI adaptations. We then held a National Expert Summit (Study 2) with 15 research and practice experts. Participants provided feedback via a nominal group process (NGP; n = 6 groups) and hackathon (n = 4 groups). The research team rated each NGP suggestion for how actionable, impactful/effective, and feasible it was. We also coded hackathon notes for novel ideas or alignment with LOCI components.

Results

Study 1 suggestions included modifications to LOCI content and delivery. Study 2's NGP results revealed most recommendations to be actionable, impactful/effective, and feasible. Hackathon results surfaced two novel ideas (distributed leadership teams and leaders’ knowledge to support educators EBP use) and several areas of alignment with LOCI components.

Conclusion

Use of these iterative methods informed the redesign of LOCI and the development of HELM. Because it was collaboratively constructed, HELM has the potential to be an effective implementation strategy to support the use of universal EBP in schools.

Plain Language Summary

Our research team designed a strategy (HELM) for school principals to improve the support they provide to staff to implement practices proven to work in research for improving student outcomes. We designed HELM by conducting focus groups with school district administrators, principals, and teachers. Participants were asked for their feedback on how to adapt an existing leadership strategy (LOCI) to the school context. After collecting this feedback, we held a meeting with 15 research and practice experts. During this meeting, the group of experts reviewed the focus group feedback and decided how to incorporate it into the design of the HELM strategy. We believe that collecting this feedback and involving research and practice experts in interpreting and integrating participant feedback into the HELM strategy will make HELM a more effective strategy for supporting school principals’ in implementing supports in their schools.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**