Methodology Archives - Page 2 of 5 - Implementation Science at UW

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

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

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

Abstract:

Background

Method

Results

Discussion

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**}

✪ Methodology for adapting a co-created early childhood development intervention and implementation strategies for use by frontline workers in India and Guatemala: a systematic application of the FRAME-IS framework

Authors:

Amruta Bandal, Sara Hernández, Revan Mustafa, Karyn Choy, Namrata Edwards, Magdalena Guarchaj, Marinés Mejía Alvarez, Anushree Sane, Scott Tschida , Chetna Maliye, Ann Miller, Abhishek Raut, Roopa Srinivasan, Morgan Turner, Bradley H. Wagenaar , Ilgi Ertem, Maria del Pilar Grazioso, Subodh S. Gupta, Vibha Krishnamurthy, and Peter Rohloff.

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

✪ Open Access

Published: May 2026

Read the full text in the open access journal Global Health Action

Abstract:

There is little evidence on optimizing the effectiveness and implementation of evidence-based early childhood development (ECD) interventions when task-shifted to frontline workers. In this Methods Forum paper, we describe our adaptation of the International Guide for Monitoring Child Development (GMCD) for task-shifting to frontline workers in Guatemala and India. In 2021–2022, implementers, trainers, frontline workers, caregivers, and international GMCD experts collaborated to adapt the GMCD for a task shifted implementation by frontline workers. We used an eight-step co-creating process: assembling a multidisciplinary team, training on the existing package, working groups to begin modifications, revision of draft modifications, tailoring of visual materials and language, train-the-trainers activities, pilot frontline worker trainings, final review and feedback. Preliminary effectiveness of adaptations was evaluated through narrative notes and group-based qualitative feedback following pilot trainings with 16 frontline workers in India and 6 in Guatemala. Final adaptations included: refining training techniques to match skill levels and learning styles of frontline workers; tailoring all visual materials to local languages and contexts; design of job aids for providing developmental support messages; modification of referral and triage processes for children in need of enhanced support and specialty referral; and creation of post-training support procedures. Feedback from pilot trainings included: (1) group consensus that training improved ECD skills and knowledge across multiple domains; and (2) feedback on ongoing needed adjustments to pacing, use of video-based vs. role-playing materials, and time allocated to small group work. We use the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) framework to document our adaptations. The co-creating approach we use, as well as systematic documentation of adaptation decisions will be of use to other community-based early childhood interventions and implementation strategies.

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

✪ Getting cozy with causality: Advances to the causal pathway diagramming method to enhance implementation precision

Abstract:

Background

Implementation strategies are theorized to work well when carefully matched to implementation determinants and when factors—preconditions, moderators, etc.—that influence strategy effectiveness are prospectively identified and addressed. Existing methods for strategy selection are either imprecise or require significant technical expertise and resources, undermining their utility. This article outlines refinements to causal pathway diagrams (CPDs), a method for articulating the causal process through which implementation strategies work and offers illustrations of their use.

Method

CPDs are a visualization tool to represent an implementation strategy, its mechanism(s) (i.e., the processes through which a strategy is thought to operate), determinants it is intended to address, factors that may impede or facilitate its effectiveness, and the series of outcomes that should be expected if the strategy is operating as intended. We offer principles for constructing CPDs and describe their key functions.

Results

Applications of the CPD method by study teams from two National Institute of Health-funded Implementation Science Centers and a research grant are presented. These include the use of CPDs to (a) match implementation strategies to determinants, (b) understand the conditions under which an implementation strategy works, and (c) develop causal theories of implementation strategies.

Conclusions

CPDs offer a novel method for implementers to select, understand, and improve the effectiveness of implementation strategies. They make explicit theoretical assumptions about strategy operation while supporting practical planning. Early applications have led to method refinements and guidance for the field.

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

✪ Leveraging human-centered design and causal pathway diagramming toward enhanced specification and development of innovative implementation strategies: a case example of an outreach tool to address racial inequities in breast cancer screening

Abstract:

Background

Implementation strategies are strategies to improve uptake of evidence-based practices or interventions and are essential to implementation science. Developing or tailoring implementation strategies may benefit from integrating approaches from other disciplines; yet current guidance on how to effectively incorporate methods from other disciplines to develop and refine innovative implementation strategies is limited. We describe an approach that combines community-engaged methods, human-centered design (HCD) methods, and causal pathway diagramming (CPD)—an implementation science tool to map an implementation strategy as it is intended to work—to develop innovative implementation strategies.

Methods

We use a case example of developing a conversational agent or chatbot to address racial inequities in breast cancer screening via mammography. With an interdisciplinary team including community members and operational leaders, we conducted a rapid evidence review and elicited qualitative data through interviews and focus groups using HCD methods to identify and prioritize key determinants (facilitators and barriers) of the evidence-based intervention (breast cancer screening) and the implementation strategy (chatbot). We developed a CPD using key determinants and proposed strategy mechanisms and proximal outcomes based in conceptual frameworks.

Results

We identified key determinants for breast cancer screening and for the chatbot implementation strategy. Mistrust was a key barrier to both completing breast cancer screening and using the chatbot. We focused design for the initial chatbot interaction to engender trust and developed a CPD to guide chatbot development. We used the persuasive health message framework and conceptual frameworks about trust from marketing and artificial intelligence disciplines. We developed a CPD for the initial interaction with the chatbot with engagement as a mechanism to use and trust as a proximal outcome leading to further engagement with the chatbot.

Conclusions

The use of interdisciplinary methods is core to implementation science. HCD is a particularly synergistic discipline with multiple existing applications of HCD to implementation research. We present an extension of this work and an example of the potential value in an integrated community-engaged approach of HCD and implementation science researchers and methods to combine strengths of both disciplines and develop human-centered implementation strategies rooted in causal perspective and healthcare equity.

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

✪ Mending the gap: Measurement needs to address policy implementation through a health equity lens

Abstract:

Policies represent a key opportunity to improve the health outcomes of populations, and if implemented well, can reduce disparities affecting marginalized populations. Many policies are only evaluated on whether they elicit their intended health outcome. However, a lack of understanding regarding if and how they are implemented may hinder the intended impact overall and on addressing health disparities. Implementation science offers an array of frameworks and methodological approaches for assessing policy delivery, yet few examples exist that meaningfully include health equity as a core focus.

This commentary describes the importance of equity-informed implementation measurement by providing case examples and implications for assessment. In addition, we highlight examples of emerging work in policy implementation grounded in health equity with suggested steps for moving the field forward. The ultimate goal is to move toward open-access measurement approaches that can be adapted to study implementation of a variety of policies at different stages of implementation, driven by input from marginalized populations and implementation practitioners, to move the needle on addressing health disparities.

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

✪ Drivers of success: improving implementation research tools for better health outcomes

Abstract:

A thorough examination of context, and how it influences implementation of evidence-based interventions, is a promising strategy for enhancing child survival initiatives. Spreading approaches that are identified as drivers of successful reduction in under-five mortality from ‘exemplar’ countries could be pivotal in leading to reductions in other settings facing stagnant mortality rates, in particular for low- and middle-income countries with high disease burden and insufficient programmatic capacity to effectively implement evidence-based interventions at scale. Yet there remains a lack of robust analytic methods to accurately assess mortality and describe the drivers of interventions’ implementation success at both national and subnational levels. The field of implementation science and its defining targets and tools is well positioned to address this knowledge gap by integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods into an adaptable evaluation framework that can be tailored to meet the specific needs across varying country contexts. These tools enhance the measurement of population health outcomes and provide crucial evidence on implementation barriers and facilitators that can inform policies that can be adjusted for diverse contexts. This commentary aims to emphasize the role of implementation research in understanding how exemplar countries achieved significant improvements in child survival and in identifying replicable lessons for other settings. Ultimately, all manuscripts underscore the relevance of implementation research in bolstering the reduction of under-five mortality.

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

✪ A structured approach to applying systems analysis methods for examining implementation mechanisms

Abstract:

Background

It is challenging to identify and understand the specific mechanisms through which an implementation strategy affects implementation outcomes, as implementation happens in the context of complex, multi-level systems. These systems and the mechanisms within each level have their own dynamic environments that change frequently. For instance, sequencing may matter in that a mechanism may only be activated indirectly by a strategy through another mechanism. The dosage or strength of a mechanism may vary over time or across different health care system levels. To elucidate the mechanisms relevant to successful implementation amidst this complexity, systems analysis methods are needed to model and manage complexity.

Methods

The fields of systems engineering and systems science offer methods—which we refer to as systems analysis methods—to help explain the interdependent relationships between and within systems, as well as dynamic changes to systems over time. When applied to studying implementation mechanisms, systems analysis methods can help (i) better identify and manage unknown conditions that may or may not activate mechanisms (both expected mechanisms targeted by a strategy and unexpected mechanisms that the methods help detect) and (ii) flexibly guide strategy adaptations to address contextual influences that emerge after the strategy is selected and used.

Results

In this paper, we delineate a structured approach to applying systems analysis methods for examining implementation mechanisms. The approach includes explicit steps for selecting, tailoring, and evaluating an implementation strategy regarding the mechanisms that the strategy is initially hypothesized to activate, as well as additional mechanisms that are identified through the steps. We illustrate the approach using a case example. We then discuss the strengths and limitations of this approach, as well as when these steps might be most appropriate, and suggest work to further the contributions of systems analysis methods to implementation mechanisms research.

Conclusions

Our approach to applying systems analysis methods can encourage more mechanisms research efforts to consider these methods and in turn fuel both (i) rigorous comparisons of these methods to alternative mechanisms research approaches and (ii) an active discourse across the field to better delineate when these methods are appropriate for advancing mechanisms-related knowledge.

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

✪ Human-centered design methods to achieve preparation phase goals in the multiphase optimization strategy framework

Abstract:

Background

The public health impact of behavioral and biobehavioral interventions to prevent and treat mental health and substance use problems hinges on developing methods to strategically maximize their effectiveness, affordability, scalability, and efficiency.

Methods

The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is an innovative, principled framework that guides the development of multicomponent interventions. Each phase of MOST (Preparation, Optimization, Evaluation) has explicit goals and a range of appropriate research methods to achieve them. Methods for attaining Optimization and Evaluation phase goals are well-developed. However, methods used in the Preparation phase are often highly researcher-specific, and concrete ways to achieve Preparation phase goals are a priority area for further development.

Results

We propose that the discover, design, build, and test (DDBT) framework provides a theory-driven and methods-rich roadmap for achieving the goals of the Preparation phase of MOST, including specifying the conceptual model, identifying and testing candidate intervention components, and defining the optimization objective. The DDBT framework capitalizes on strategies from the field of human-centered design and implementation science to drive its data collection methods.

Conclusions

MOST and DDBT share many conceptual features, including an explicit focus on implementation determinants, being iterative and flexible, and designing interventions for the greatest public health impact. The proposed synthesized DDBT/MOST approach integrates DDBT into the Preparation phase of MOST thereby providing a framework for rigorous and efficient intervention development research to bolster the success of intervention optimization.

Plain Language Summary

What is already known about the topic? Optimizing behavioral interventions to balance effectiveness with affordability, scalability, and efficiency requires a significant investment in intervention development.

What does this paper add? This paper provides a structured approach to integrating human-centered design principles into the Preparation phase of the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST).

What are the implications for practice, research, or policy? The proposed synthesized model provides a framework for rigorous and efficient intervention development research in the Preparation phase of MOST that will ensure the success of intervention optimization and contribute to improving public health impact of mental health and substance use interventions.

^{**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 Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Method

Results

Discussion

Contributions to the literature

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Method

Results

Discussion

Contributions to the literature

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Global Health Action

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal BMC Pediatrics

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Plain Language Summary