Implementation Strategies (general) Archives - Implementation Science at UW

✪ Reciprocal innovation in implementation science and global health: reflections from the EXTRA-CVD (extending the HIV treatment cascade for cardiovascular disease prevention) study

Abstract:

Reciprocal innovation, a model of sustained, multidirectional exchange in which health strategies are adapted, revisited, and refined across contexts, offers a compelling framework to rethink how implementation science can support global health equity by enabling dynamic, multidirectional learning across different contexts. Drawing on the EXTRA-CVD trial, a nurse-led cardiovascular disease prevention intervention designed to extend the HIV treatment cascade in United States (U.S.) HIV clinics, which adapted strategies informed by implementation research in Kenya and the U.S. Veterans Affairs health system, this perspective examines how reciprocal innovation can begin to emerge within existing research structures, as well as where opportunities for deeper exchange remain limited. We identify four operational domains of reciprocal innovation: care delivery strategies, end-user engagement, research methodologies, and research leadership and partnership. Across these domains, we describe how cross-context learning shaped intervention adaptation and site-level implementation in EXTRA-CVD, as well as missed opportunities where more intentional feedback, shared leadership, and methodological exchange could have strengthened multidirectional learning. Taken together, this work highlights both the potential and the practical challenges of reciprocal innovation in implementation research, emphasizing its role in moving beyond unidirectional knowledge transfer toward iterative, context-responsive learning. By embedding structures for iterative feedback, equity-centered governance, and multidirectional learning systems within research and implementation systems, future global partnerships can foster more inclusive, responsive, and sustainable health interventions.

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

✪ Exploring implementation strategies in evidence-based open streets programs for promoting physical activity in the Americas: a scoping review

Abstract:

Background

Chronic diseases are a leading public health concern in the Americas, and physical inactivity contributes significantly to their burden. Open streets program—community initiatives that temporarily close urban streets to vehicles—promote physical activity and community engagement, demonstrating positive health and social impacts. Effective implementation depends on identifying suitable strategies and frameworks. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, developed for clinical/healthcare contexts, has not been widely assessed for community-based interventions such as Open Streets. Implementation strategies could lead to specific outcomes (e.g., adoption, sustainability) that differ from program outcomes (e.g., PA levels, chronic disease prevalence). This scoping review focuses on the strategies that influence implementation outcomes. The primary aims of this review were to (1) identify implementation strategies for Open Streets programs and (2) identify opportunities for Open Streets programs to promote chronic disease prevention and physical activity, specifically in the Americas.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Six databases (PubMed, Scopus, Scielo, Web of Science, TRIS, and LILACS) were searched for studies on Open Streets programs in the Americas (January 2004–April 2024). Three reviewers independently screened studies in Rayyan. Strategies were extracted and coded according to the 73 ERIC taxonomy strategies. Quality appraisal used MMAT for empirical studies, AMSTAR-2 for reviews, and AACODS for gray literature.

Results

Fifty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding 63 distinct implementation strategies for Open Streets programs. All 63 strategies were classified within the ERIC taxonomy. Frequently aligned ERIC strategies included building coalitions, capturing local knowledge, conducting needs assessments, and fostering stakeholder engagement. Open Streets strategies emphasized multisectoral collaboration, cultural adaptation, equity, and sustainability.

Discussion

Among the 63 identified Open Streets strategies, many aligned with ERIC, providing a foundation in stakeholder engagement, coalition building, and flexible, context-sensitive implementation. However, several ERIC strategies were not relevant to Open Streets, underscoring that while many ERIC strategies were applicable, not all suited this setting. Open Streets programs may require supplemental approaches to address equity, cultural competence, and multisectoral collaboration. Findings present opportunities to tailor, test, and scale strategies that maximize the population health impact of Open Streets and similar community-based programs.

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

✪ Perceptions and practices of long-acting injectable antipsychotic administration in community pharmacies within Washington state: A qualitative implementation science study

Abstract:

Background

Use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) for schizophrenia are associated with improved medication adherence and reduce relapse and hospitalizations compared to oral antipsychotics; however, despite these advantages LAIAs remain underutilized. Community pharmacies could improve access and reduce logistical barriers to LAIA administration; however, relatively few deliver this service, and we do not yet fully understand why.

Objective

To assess the contextual fit of administering LAIAs in community pharmacies, identify determinants influencing implementation, and inform implementation strategies to optimize and increase LAIA delivery across Washington State.

Methods

Key informant interviews were conducted with community pharmacy staff in Washington State using a hybrid deductive–inductive qualitative approach to explore determinants and compatibility of LAIA administration. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured guide informed by Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework. Using rapid analysis, transcripts were summarized in a structured matrix and coded into a priori domains. Barriers and facilitators were inductively categorized and then deductively-mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains; recommendations were identified to inform future implementation strategies.

Results

Ten interviews were conducted with 9 community pharmacists and one pharmacy technician. Current practices varied across participants administering LAIAs in community pharmacies. Reimbursement and payment for LAIA administration emerged as the top barrier. Appointment-based models were seen as facilitators by improving predictability for staffing and medication inventory. Participants recommended streamlining reimbursement and turnkey toolkits for training, care coordination, and communication between prescribers.

Conclusion

For community pharmacies within Washington State, payment models and reimbursement present a critical barrier to LAIA administration. Optimizing billing processes, improving funding and contracting mechanisms, and engaging payers may expand LAIA services. These represent both outer-setting and inner-setting factors, meaning that optimizing LAIA administration in community pharmacies will require system-level, multistakeholder involvement and research.

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

✪ Harnessing Human-Centered Design for Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions and Implementation Strategies in Community Settings: Protocol for Redesign to Improve Usability, Engagement, and Appropriateness

Authors:

Aaron R Lyon, Sean A Munson, Michael D Pullmann, Brittany Mosser, Tricia Aung , John Fortney, Alex Dopp, Katie P Osterhage, Helen G Haile, Kathryn E Bruzios, Brittany E Blanchard, Ryan Allred, Macey R Fuller, Patrick J Raue, Ian Bennett, Jill Locke, Karen Bearss, Denise Walker, Elizabeth Connors, Eric J Bruns, Jenna Van Draanen, Doyanne Darnell, Patricia A Areán

^{University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.}

✪ Open Access

Published: January 2025

Read the full text in the open access journal JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract:

Background

Although substantial progress has been made in establishing evidence-based psychosocial clinical interventions and implementation strategies for mental health, translating research into practice—particularly in more accessible, community settings—has been slow.

Objective

This protocol outlines the renewal of the National Institute of Mental Health–funded University of Washington Advanced Laboratories for Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness Center, which draws from human-centered design (HCD) and implementation science to improve clinical interventions and implementation strategies. The Center’s second round of funding (2023-2028) focuses on using the Discover, Design and Build, and Test (DDBT) framework to address 3 priority clinical intervention and implementation strategy mechanisms (ie, usability, engagement, and appropriateness), which we identified as challenges to implementation and scalability during the first iteration of the center. Local redesign teams work collaboratively and share decision-making to carry out DDBT.

Methods

All 4 core studies received institutional review board approval by June 2024, and each pilot project will pursue institutional review board approval when awarded. We will provide research infrastructure to 1 large effectiveness study and 3 exploratory pilot studies as part of the center grant. At least 4 additional small pilot studies will be solicited and funded by the center. All studies will explore the use of DDBT for clinical interventions and implementation strategies to identify modification targets to improve usability, engagement, and appropriateness in accessible nonspecialty settings (Discover phase); develop redesign solutions with local teams to address modification targets (Design and Build phase); and determine if redesign improves usability, engagement, and appropriateness (Test phase), as well as implementation outcomes. Center staff will collaborate with local redesign teams to develop and test clinical interventions and implementation strategies for community settings. We will collaborate with teams to use methods and centerwide measures that facilitate cross-project analysis of the effects of DDBT-driven redesign on outcomes of interest.

Results

As of January 2025, three of the 4 core studies are underway. We will generate additional evidence on the robustness of DDBT and whether combining HCD and implementation science is an asset for improving clinical interventions and implementation strategies.

Conclusions

During the first round of the center, we established that DDBT is a useful approach to systematically identify and address chronic challenges of implementing clinical interventions and implementation strategies. In this subsequent grant, we expect to increase evidence of DDBT’s impact on clinical interventions and implementation strategies by expanding a list of common challenges that could benefit from modification, a list of exemplary solutions to address these challenges, and guidance on using the DDBT framework. These resources will contribute to broader discourse on how to enhance implementation of clinical interventions and implementation strategies that integrate HCD and implementation science.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/65446

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

✪ Applying the Cognitive Walkthrough for Implementation Strategies methodology to inform the redesign of a selection-quality implementation toolkit for use in schools

Abstract:

Background

Implementation strategies are key to enhancing the translation of new innovations but there is a need to systematically design and tailor strategies to match the targeted implementation context and address determinants. There are increasing methods to inform the development and tailoring of implementation strategies to maximize their usability, feasibility, and appropriateness in new settings such as the Cognitive Walkthrough for Implementation Strategies (CWIS) approach. The aim of the current project is to apply the CWIS approach to inform the redesign of a multifaceted selection-quality implementation toolkit entitled Adoption of Curricular supports Toolkit: Systematic Measurement of Appropriateness and Readiness for Translation in Schools (ACT SMARTS) for use in middle and high schools.

Methods

We systematically applied CWIS as the second part of a community-partnered iterative redesign of ACT SMARTS for schools to evaluate the usability and inform further toolkit redesign areas. We conducted three CWIS user testing sessions with key end users of school district administrators (n = 3), school principals (n = 6), and educators (n = 6).

Results

Our CWIS application revealed that end users found ACT SMARTS acceptable and relevant but anticipate usability issues engaging in the ACT SMARTS process. Results informed the identification of eleven usability issues and corresponding redesign solutions to enhance the usability of ACT SMARTS for use in middle and high schools.

Conclusions

Results indicated the utility of CWIS in assessing implementation strategy usability in service of informing strategy modification as part of our broader redesign to improve alignment with end user, end recipient, and setting needs. Recommendations regarding the use of this participatory approach are discussed.

Contributions to the literature

The current case study adds to the nascent literature applying the Cognitive Walkthrough for Implementation Strategies (CWIS) method as part of a larger implementation project, including one of the first independent applications outside of the CWIS method developers.
The current case study illustrates the impact and utility of the CWIS method for designing and tailoring implementation strategies.
This case study provides further guidance and recommendations for the application of CWIS to future implementation projects.

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

✪ Increasing goals of care conversations in primary care: Study protocol for a cluster randomized, pragmatic, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial

Abstract:

Background

Goals of care conversations explore seriously ill patients' values to guide medical decision making and often inform decisions about life sustaining treatments. Ideally, conversations occur before a health crisis between patients and clinicians in the outpatient setting. In the United States Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, most conversations still occur in the inpatient setting. Strategies are needed to improve implementation of outpatient, primary care goals of care conversations.

Methods

We plan a cluster randomized (clinician-level) sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patient implementation strategies on the outcome of goals of care conversation documentation when delivered in combination with clinician implementation strategies. Across three VA healthcare system sites, we will enroll primary care clinicians with low rates of goals of care conversations and their patients with serious medical illness in the top 10th percentile of risk of hospitalization or death. We will compare the effectiveness of sequences of implementation strategies and explore how patient and site factors modify implementation strategy effects. Finally, we will conduct a mixed-methods evaluation to understand implementation strategy success or failure. The design includes two key innovations: (1) strategies that target both clinicians and patients and (2) sequential strategies with increased intensity for non-responders.

Conclusion

This study aims to determine the effect of different sequences and combinations of implementation strategies on primary care documentation of goals of care conversations. Study partners, including the VA National Center for Ethics in Health Care and Office of Primary Care, can consider policies based on study findings.

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

✪ Relevance of learning health systems to physiatrists and its synergy with implementation science: A commentary

Abstract:

As health care attempts to bridge the gap between evidence and practice, the concept of the learning health system (LHS) is becoming increasingly relevant. LHS integrates evidence with health systems data, driving health care quality and outcomes through updates in policy, practice, and care delivery. In addition, LHS research is becoming critically important as there are several initiatives underway to increase research capacity, expertise, and implementation, including attempts to stimulate increasing numbers of LHS researchers. Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians (physiatrists), nurses, therapists (physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, clinical psychologists), and scientists are affiliated with LHSs. As LHS research expands in health care systems, better awareness and understanding of LHSs and LHS research competencies are key for rehabilitation professionals including physiatrists. To address this need, the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) identified 33 core competencies, grouped into eight domains, for training LHS researchers. The domains are: (1) Systems Science; (2) Research Questions and Standards of Scientific Evidence; (3) Research Methods; (4) Informatics; (5) Ethics of Research and Implementation in Health Systems; (6) Improvement and Implementation Science; (7) Engagement, Leadership, and Research Management; and the recently added (8) Health and Healthcare Equity and Justice. The purpose of this commentary is to define LHS and its relevance to physiatrists, present the role of implementation science (IS) in LHSs and application of IS principles to design LHSs, illustrate current LHS research in rehabilitation, and discuss potential solutions to improve awareness and to stimulate interest in LHS research and IS among physiatrists in LHSs.

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

✪ Raising the issue of quality in implementation science reporting in global health: Implications for health planning and practice

Abstract:

Implementation outcomes, which focus on the barriers to, and facilitators and processes of healthcare delivery, are critical to translating research evidence to health planning and practice and to improving healthcare delivery. This article summarizes key quality issues in reporting of implementation science outcomes within global health and describes the ways in which this presents a challenge for shifting health planning and practice across low-resource health systems. This article also suggests that the wider use of reporting guidelines for implementation outcomes could help address this issue.

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

✪ Adjunctive interventions: Change methods directed at recipients that support uptake and use of health innovations

Abstract:

Background

Implementation science groups change methods into two categories: (1) clinical, behavioral, or biomedical intervention targeting recipient’s health outcomes and (2) implementation strategies targeting the delivery system. Differentiating interventions from strategies based on their intended functions is critical to accurately attributing their effects to health or implementation outcomes. However, in coordinating 200+ HIV implementation research projects and conducting systematic reviews, we identified change methods that had characteristics of both interventions and strategies that were inconsistently categorized. To alleviate confusion and improve change method specification, we propose that implementation science should adopt an extant but rarely used term—adjunctive interventions—to classify change methods that are distinct from the common intervention/strategy taxonomy

Main text

Adjunctive interventions as change methods that target recipients (e.g., patients, participants) of a health intervention but are designed to increase recipients’ motivation, self-efficacy, or capacity for initiating, adhering to, complying with, or engaging with the health intervention over time. In two of our published reviews on implementation of HIV interventions, 25 out of 45 coded change methods fell into this gray area between strategy and intervention. We also noted instances in which the same change method was labelled as the intervention (“the thing”), as an adjunctive intervention, or an implementation strategy in different studies—further muddying the waters. Adjunctive interventions are distinguished from other change methods by their intended targets, desired outcomes, and theory of action and causal processes. Whereas health interventions target recipients and have a direct, causal effect on the health outcome, adjunctive interventions enhance recipients’ attitudes and behaviors to engage with the intervention and have an indirect causal link to the health outcome via increasing the probability of recipients’ utilization and adherence to the intervention. Adjunctive interventions are incapable of directly producing the health outcome and will themselves require implementation strategies to effectively impact sustained uptake, utilization, and adherence. Case examples, logic modeling, and considerations (e.g., relationship to consumer engagement strategies) for adjunctive intervention research are provided

Conclusion

Conceptualizing adjunctive interventions as a separate type of change method will advance implementation research by improving tests of effectiveness, and the specification of mechanisms and outcomes.

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

✪ Application of the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of strategies to health intervention implementation in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Abstract:

Background

The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project developed a compilation of implementation strategies that are intended to standardize reporting and evaluation. Little is known about the application of ERIC in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically reviewed the literature on the use and specification of ERIC strategies for health intervention implementation in LMICs to identify gaps and inform future research.

Methods

We searched peer-reviewed articles published through March 2023 in any language that (1) were conducted in an LMIC and (2) cited seminal ERIC articles or (3) mentioned ERIC in the title or abstract. Two co-authors independently screened all titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, then abstracted study, intervention, and implementation strategy characteristics of included studies.

Results

The final sample included 60 studies describing research from all world regions, with over 30% published in the final year of our review period. Most studies took place in healthcare settings (n = 52, 86.7%), while 11 (18.2%) took place in community settings and four (6.7%) at the policy level. Across studies, 548 distinct implementation strategies were identified with a median of six strategies (range 1–46 strategies) included in each study. Most studies (n = 32, 53.3%) explicitly matched implementation strategies used for the ERIC compilation. Among those that did, 64 (87.3%) of the 73 ERIC strategies were represented. Many of the strategies not cited included those that target systems- or policy-level barriers. Nearly 85% of strategies included some component of strategy specification, though most only included specification of their action (75.2%), actor (57.3%), and action target (60.8%). A minority of studies employed randomized trials or high-quality quasi-experimental designs; only one study evaluated implementation strategy effectiveness.

Conclusions

While ERIC use in LMICs is rapidly growing, its application has not been consistent nor commonly used to test strategy effectiveness. Research in LMICs must better specify strategies and evaluate their impact on outcomes. Moreover, strategies that are tested need to be better specified, so they may be compared across contexts. Finally, strategies targeting policy-, systems-, and community-level determinants should be further explored.

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

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal BMC Global Public Health

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Journal of the American Pharmacy Association

Abstract:

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract:

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Contributions to the literature

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Contemporary Clinical Trials

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Conclusion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text open access in The Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text open access in The International Journal of Health Planning and Management

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science

Abstract:

Background

Main text

Conclusion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions