C. Bradley Kramer, Karin M. Nelson, George Sayre, Jennifer L Williams, Leon Spruill, Tiffanie Fennell, Kristen E. Gray, Bryan J. Weiner, Vincent Fan, Jessica Jones-Smith, & Mayuree Rao
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: July 2024
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.
Published: June 2024
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.
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.
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).
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**
Audrey Harkness, Ali Giusto, Alison B. Hamilton, Raul U. Hernandez-Ramirez, Donna Spiegelman, Bryan J. Weiner, Rinad S. Beidas, Michaela E. Larson, Sheri A. Lippman, Milton L. Wainberg, and Justin D. Smith
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: June 2024
Implementation science (IS) offers methods to systematically achieve the Ending the HIV Epidemic goals in the United States, as well as the global UNAIDS targets. Federal funders such as the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) have invested in implementation research to achieve these goals, including supporting the AIDS Research Centres (ARCs), which focus on high-impact science in HIV and mental health (MH). To facilitate capacity building for the HIV/MH research workforce in IS, “grey areas,” or areas of IS that are confusing, particularly for new investigators, should be addressed in the context of HIV/MH research.
A group of IS experts affiliated with NIMH-funded ARCs convened to identify common and challenging grey areas. The group generated a preliminary list of 19 grey areas in HIV/MH-related IS. From the list, the authors developed a survey which was distributed to all ARCs to prioritize grey areas to address in this paper. ARC members across the United States (N = 60) identified priority grey areas requiring clarification. This commentary discusses topics with 40% or more endorsement. The top grey areas that ARC members identified were: (1) Differentiating implementation strategies from interventions; (2) Determining when an intervention has sufficient evidence for adaptation; (3) Integrating recipient perspectives into HIV/MH implementation research; (4) Evaluating whether an implementation strategy is evidence-based; (5) Identifying rigorous approaches for evaluating the impact of implementation strategies in the absence of a control group or randomization; and (6) Addressing innovation in HIV/MH IS grants. The commentary addresses each grey area by drawing from the existing literature (when available), providing expert guidance on addressing each in the context of HIV/MH research, and providing domestic and global HIV and HIV/MH case examples that address these grey areas.
HIV/MH IS is key to achieving domestic and international goals for ending HIV transmission and mitigating its impact. Guidance offered in this paper can help to overcome challenges to rigorous and high-impact HIV/MH implementation research.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Gwendolyn M. Lawson, Julie Sarno Owens, David S. Mandell, Samantha Tavlin, Steven Rufe, Aubrey Depa, Aaron R. Lyon, & Thomas J. Power
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: June 2024
Schools need effective, sustainable implementation strategies to support teachers in using effective Tier 1 (i.e., whole class) and Tier 2 (i.e., targeted) behavioral interventions in the classroom. This paper describes an iterative, community-partnered process of developing implementation resources to support teachers in using Tier 1 and 2 positive behavior management interventions; we call these resources the Positive Behavior Management Toolkit (PBMT). There were two key aspects to the iterative development process: 1) working with a Program Development Team of district—and school-employed partners to identify priorities, interpret data, provide feedback on resources, and plan for sustainment; and 2) conducting a series of tryouts in which teachers used a version of the PBMT in their classrooms and provided quantitative and qualitative feedback on acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and recommendations for improvement. In partnership with the Program Development Team, we used data from the tryouts to inform revisions to the PBMT. This paper presents quantitative and qualitative data from the tryouts and describes how these data informed revisions to the PBMT. We also describe the processes by which we engaged the team, considerations related to contextual appropriateness, and lessons learned related to community-engaged intervention development research.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Hannah H. Leslie, Sheri A. Lippman, Alastair van Heerden, Mbali Nokulunga Manaka, Phillip Joseph, Bryan J. Weiner & Wayne T. Steward
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: June 2024
Implementation science frameworks situate intervention implementation and sustainment within the context of the implementing organization and system. Aspects of organizational context such as leadership have been defined and measured largely within US health care settings characterized by decentralization and individual autonomy. The relevance of these constructs in other settings may be limited by differences like collectivist orientation, resource constraints, and hierarchical power structures. We aimed to adapt measures of organizational context in South African primary care clinics.
We convened a panel of South African experts in social science and HIV care delivery and presented implementation domains informed by existing frameworks and prior work in South Africa. Based on panel input, we selected contextual domains and adapted candidate items. We conducted cognitive interviews with 25 providers in KwaZulu-Natal Province to refine measures. We then conducted a cross-sectional survey of 16 clinics with 5–20 providers per clinic (N = 186). We assessed reliability using Cronbach’s alpha and calculated interrater agreement (awg) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) at the clinic level. Within clinics with moderate agreement, we calculated correlation of clinic-level measures with each other and with hypothesized predictors – staff continuity and infrastructure – and a clinical outcome, patient retention on antiretroviral therapy.
Panelists emphasized contextual factors; we therefore focused on elements of clinic leadership, stress, cohesion, and collective problem solving (critical consciousness). Cognitive interviews confirmed salience of the domains and improved item clarity. After excluding items related to leaders’ coordination abilities due to missingness and low agreement, all other scales demonstrated individual-level reliability and at least moderate interrater agreement in most facilities. ICC was low for most leadership measures and moderate for others. Measures tended to correlate within facility, and higher stress was significantly correlated with lower staff continuity. Organizational context was generally more positively rated in facilities that showed consistent agreement.
As theorized, organizational context is important in understanding program implementation within the South African health system. Most adapted measures show good reliability at individual and clinic levels. Additional revision of existing frameworks to suit this context and further testing in high and low performing clinics is warranted.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
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.
Published: June 2024
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.
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.
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.
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.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
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.
Published: June 2024
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.
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.
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.
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.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Sophia M. Bartels, Huong T. T. Phan, Heidi E. Hutton, Do T. Nhan, Teerada Sripaipan, Jane S. Chen, Sarah L. Rossi, Olivia Ferguson, Ha T. T. Nong, Ngan T. K. Nguyen, Le Minh Giang, Hao T. M. Bui, Geetanjali Chander, Hojoon Sohn, Sol Kim, Ha V. Tran, Minh X. Nguyen, Byron J. Powell, Brian W. Pence, William C. Miller & Vivian F. Go
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: June 2024
Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) often address normative behaviors. If a behavior is also common among clinicians, they may be skeptical about the necessity or effectiveness of an EBI. Alternatively, clinicians’ attitudes and behaviors may be misaligned, or they may lack the knowledge and self-efficacy to deliver the EBI. Several EBIs address unhealthy alcohol use, a common and often culturally acceptable behavior. But unhealthy alcohol use may be particularly harmful to people with HIV (PWH). Here, we present an implementation trial using an experiential implementation strategy to address clinicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Clinicians receive the experiential intervention before they begin delivering an evidence-based brief alcohol intervention (BAI) to PWH with unhealthy alcohol use.
Design: In this hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized controlled trial, ART clinics (n = 30) will be randomized 1:1 to facilitation, a flexible strategy to address implementation barriers, or facilitation plus the experiential brief alcohol intervention (EBAI). In the EBAI arm, clinicians, irrespective of their alcohol use, will be offered the BAI as experiential learning. EBAI will address clinicians’ alcohol-related attitudes and behaviors and increase their knowledge and confidence to deliver the BAI.
Participants: ART clinic staff will be enrolled and assessed at pre-BAI training, post-BAI training, 3, 12, and 24 months. All PWH at the ART clinics who screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use will be offered the BAI. A subset of PWH (n = 810) will be enrolled and assessed at baseline, 3, and 12 months.
Outcomes: We will compare implementation outcomes (acceptability, fidelity, penetration, costs, and sustainability) and effectiveness outcomes (viral suppression and alcohol use) between the two arms. We will assess the impact of site-level characteristics on scaling-up the BAI. We will also evaluate how experiencing the BAI affected clinical staff’s alcohol use and clinic-level alcohol expectations in the EBAI arm.
This trial contributes to implementation science by testing a novel strategy to implement a behavior change intervention in a setting in which clinicians themselves may engage in the behavior. Experiential learning may be useful to address normative and difficult to change lifestyle behaviors that contribute to chronic diseases.
NCT06358885 (04/10/2024), https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06358885.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Yuvaram N V Reddy, Matthew D Kearney, Michaela Ward, Robert E Burke, Ann M O'Hare, Peter P Reese, Meghan B Lane-Fall & IM-HOME Advisory Board
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: June 204
Developing strategies to improve home dialysis use requires a comprehensive understanding of barriers. We sought to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis use from the perspective of patients, care partners, and providers.
This is a convergent parallel mixed-methods study.
We convened a 7-member advisory board of patients, care partners, and providers who collectively developed lists of major patient/care partner-perceived barriers and provider-perceived barriers to home dialysis. We used these lists to develop a survey that was distributed to patients, care partners, and providers—through the American Association of Kidney Patients and the National Kidney Foundation. The surveys asked participants to (1) rank their top 3 major barriers (quantitative) and (2) describe barriers to home dialysis (qualitative).
We compiled a list of the top 3 patient/care partner-perceived and top 3 provider-perceived barriers (quantitative). We also conducted a directed content analysis of open-ended survey responses (qualitative).
There were 522 complete responses (233 providers; 289 patients/care partners). The top 3 patient/care partner-perceived barriers were fear of performing home dialysis; lack of space; and the need for home-based support. The top 3 provider-perceived barriers were poor patient education; limited mechanisms for home-based support staff, mental health, and education; and lack of experienced staff. We identified 9 themes through qualitative analysis: limited education; financial disincentives; limited resources; high burden of care; built environment/structure of care delivery that favors in-center hemodialysis; fear and isolation; perceptions of inequities in access to home dialysis; provider perspectives about patients; and patient/provider resiliency.
This was an online survey that is subject to nonresponse bias.
The top 3 barriers to home dialysis for patient/care partners and providers incompletely overlap, suggesting the need for diverse strategies that simultaneously address patient-perceived barriers at home and provider-perceived barriers in the clinic.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
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.
Published: May 2024
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.
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.
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.
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**