Danielle M. Wesolowicz, William C. Becker, Margarita Alegria , Lia Chin-Purcell, Joseph E. Glass, Hannah K. Knudsen, Patience M. Dow, Karen H. Seal & Emma B. McGinty
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: April 2025
Matias Korfmacher, Cat Hartwell, Kelly Hill, Nathaniel Matthews-Trigg, Jeremy Hess, Amruta Nori-Sarma, & Gregory Wellenius
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: April 2025
The 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome was Washington state’s deadliest recorded weather event and presented unprecedented response challenges to the state’s health sector. Understanding the impacts of this extreme heat event (EHE) on the sector as well as the barriers to and facilitators of implementing effective heat response is critical to preparing for future events, which are happening more frequently in the region due to climate change.
Guided by an implementation science framework, we convened listening sessions and focus groups of the health sector in western Washington to reflect on regional response efforts.
Health sector organisations in 15 counties in western Washington State, USA: Clallam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston and Whatcom.
A convenience sample of 109 listening group participants was recruited through the professional networks of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network, a regional healthcare coalition. 27 of the health sector professionals were recruited using purposive sampling to participate in seven focus groups organised by organisation type.
The co-presence of the COVID-19 pandemic, limited staff capacity, resource acquisition challenges and inadequate regional collaboration emerged as key barriers, while advanced planning, indoor cooling capabilities, adapting strategies to local needs, robust internal relationships and strong external partnerships were reported to facilitate effective response. Establishing centralised coordination ahead of heat events, making improvements to the cooling capabilities of the built environment, developing plans and policies for EHEs that have co-benefits for other events, adopting evidence-informed response strategies, institutionalising the knowledge and relationships developed through prior events and improving evaluative processes (such as developing real-time monitoring capacity) will enable more effective response to future EHEs.
Western Washington’s health sector implemented EHE response activities that enabled essential service continuity, despite limited resources, unfamiliarity with EHEs and other systemic challenges. The recency of the heat dome presents an opportunity to incorporate lessons learnt into practice, policies, plans and built environment; these are necessary improvements ahead of future large-scale events the region may experience in the coming decades.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Kelly A. Aschbrenner, Callie Walsh-Bailey, Meagan C. Brown, Tanveer Khan, Travis P. Baggett, Salene M.W. Jones, Douglas E. Levy, Lydia E. Pace, and Jonathan P. Winickoff
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: March 2025
The primary purpose of this study was to assess perceived burdens and benefits of participating in implementation research among staff employed in resource-constrained healthcare settings. Another objective was to use findings to generate considerations for engaging staff in research across different phases of implementation research.
This qualitative focus group and consensus building study involved researchers affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control program and nine Community Health Centers (CHCs) in Massachusetts. Six focus groups (n = 3 with CHC staff; n = 3 with researchers) assessed barriers and facilitators to staff participation in implementation research. During consensus discussions, we used findings to develop considerations for engaging staff as participants and partners throughout phases of implementation research.
Sixteen researchers and 14 staff participated in separate focus groups; nine researchers and seven staff participated in separate consensus discussions. Themes emerged across participant groups in three domains: (1) influences on research participation; (2) research burdens and benefits; and (3) ways to facilitate staff participation in research. Practical considerations included: (a) aligning research with organizational and staff values and priorities; (b) applying user-centered design to research methods; (c) building organizational and individual research capacity; and (d) offering equitable incentives for staff participation.
Engaging staff as participants and partners across different phases of implementation research requires knowledge about what contributes to research burden and benefits and addressing context-specific burdens and benefits.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Lisa DiMartino, Allison J. Carroll, Jennifer L. Ridgeway, Anna Revette, Joan M. Griffin, Bryan J. Weiner, Sandra A. Mitchell, Wynne E. Norton, Christine Cronin, Andrea L. Cheville, Ann Marie Flores, Justin D. Smith on behalf of the IMPACT Consortium
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: February 2025
Methods of integrating qualitative data across diverse studies and within multi-site research consortia are less developed than those for integrating quantitative data. The development ofsuchmethods is essential to support the data exchange needed for cross-study qualitative inquiry and given the increasing emphasis on data sharing and open science. We describe methods for qualitative data integration within the National Cancer Institute’s Improving the Management of symPtoms During And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium funded by the Cancer MoonshotSM. Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Our case study highlights potential solutions for unique challenges faced when integrating qualitative data across multiple settings in a research consortium.
The IMPACT consortium is comprised of three research centers (RCs) each conducting pragmatic trials examining the effectiveness of routine symptom management on patient-centered outcomes. After reaching consensus on use of CFIR as the common implementation determinant framework, RCs developed a semi-structured interview guide and tailored it to features of their healthcare setting and symptom management interventions. RCs conducted interviews/focus groups with healthcare system partners to examine contextual factors impacting implementation. RCs exchanged 1–2 transcripts (n = 5 total) for purposes of pilot testing the methodology.
Given the heterogeneity of study settings and contexts, it was challenging to simultaneously assign codes at both domain and construct levels and the process was resource intensive. Recommendations include employing a common framework for data collection and analyses from the outset, coding at domain level first and then incorporating construct codes, and centralizing processes via a coordinating center (or similar entity) and combining coded transcripts using qualitative software. We also generated an iteratively refined codebook that employed the CFIR schema and incorporated CFIR 2.0 to provide detailed guidance for coders conducting cross-study qualitative inquiry.
Limited guidance exists on how to support qualitative data integration, data exchange, and sharing across multiple studies. This paper describes a systematic method for employing an implementation determinant framework-guided approach to foster data integration. This methodology can be adopted by other research consortia to support qualitative data integration, cross-site qualitative inquiry, and generate improved understanding of evidence-based intervention implementation.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Kathryn A. Hansen, Erin Blakeney, and Cynthia J. Price
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: February 2025
As regulation of opioid prescribing evolves, primary care and pain clinics are shifting to provide non-pharmacological and interdisciplinary chronic pain care. An under-utilized but growing area of health care for chronic pain is complementary and integrative health (CIH). However, there is limited availability of CIH approaches within the health care system. Mindful Awareness in Body-Oriented Therapy (MABT) is an evidence-based mind-body therapy, with a manualized protocol, that focuses on developing interoceptive sensibility for improved self-awareness and nervous system regulation. Prior MABT research shows MABT improves self-report and physiological indicators of interoception as well as mental and physical symptoms of distress.
This pilot single-group study used a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design and mixed methods to study implementation strategies and outcomes for bringing MABT into an integrative chronic pain clinic. Administrative data, staff surveys, and focus groups were used to understand the implementation process and outcomes (see Additional files 2, 3, and 4). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey and administrative data. A content analysis approach was used to analyze qualitative data from focus groups.
7 staff surveys were administered over the 24-month study period and showed high acceptability and appropriateness that increased over time. Adoption, feasibility, and sustainability were also high. Clinicians made 70 referrals to MABT, 56 patients scheduled a session, 41 patients completed at least one session, and 71% of these completed the protocol. Focus groups identified MABT as a therapy that filled a gap in services, particularly for patients with a lack of body awareness and high emotion dysregulation.
Implementation of MABT was highly successful in an integrative health clinic focused on chronic pain treatment.
NCT05289024 Registered March 11, 2022
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Raslina Shrestha, Kajal Mehta, Aldina Mesic, Dinasha Dahanayake, Manish Yadav, Shankar Rai, Kiran Nakarmi, Pariwesh Bista, Tam Pham, and Barclay T. Stewart
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: February 2025
Jessica Welsch, Boeun Kim, Lorna Prophater, Basia Belza, & Sam Fazio
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: December 2024
In 2018, the Alzheimer's Association published the Dementia Care Practice Recommendations (DCPR) to provide guidance on quality care for professionals. This study aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a consultative coaching program to increase adoption of the DCPR.
A single-group pre-post design was employed. A 6-month team coaching intervention was implemented to make organization-wide and measurable changes in the areas of (1) policies and procedures, (2) education and training, or (3) care practices to increase person-centered care practices.
A total of 36 care communities in Washington and Montana states were enrolled in this program.
Focus groups were conducted with participants to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the program. A 35-item employees satisfaction survey was administered both before and after the program.
The findings offer preliminary evidence that implementing a coaching program is desired by care community staff and has a positive impact on staff job satisfaction and the use of person-centered care. The coaching model was received by staff as a supportive and affirming program.
The team coaching intervention, designed to improve person-centered care and employee satisfaction, is acceptable. However, its efficacy needs to be tested with a larger sample using a randomized controlled design.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Raslina Shrestha, Kajal Mehta, Aldina Mesic, Dinasha Dahanayake, Manish Yadav, Shankar Rai, Kiran Nakarmi, Pariwesh Bista, Tam Pham, & Barclay T Stewart
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: October 2024
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**