Emily C. Williams, Madeline C. Frost, Olivia V. Fletcher, Carol E. Achtmeyer, Jessica A. Chen, Rachel L. Bachrach, E. Jennifer Edelman, Bryan J. Weiner, George N. Ioannou, and Judith I. Tsui
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: August 2026
Amber S Khan, Clare C McCarthy, Stefan Wheat, Kenneth Sherr, Jeremy J Hess & Nicole A Errett
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: April 2026
As climate change accelerates, reducing associated health risks requires uptake of effective approaches to adaptation at scale. However, translating climate change and health adaptation (CCHA) interventions into practice remains a persistent challenge for both researchers and practitioners. Implementation science provides tools to study methods and strategies that facilitate the adoption and sustainability of interventions into practice, but its application in the CCHA domain has not yet been examined.
In response, this integrative literature review identifies how implementation science has been applied to assess determinants, strategies, and outcomes of CCHA interventions, and to evaluate gaps, strengths, and limitations in the existing literature. Nineteen articles were identified through systematic searches of four databases and expert recommendations. Discrete data domains, defined a priori, were extracted and synthesized across articles.
Findings demonstrated wide variability in the use of implementation frameworks, the identification and assessment of implementation strategies and outcomes, and the overall conceptualization of CCHA interventions. Findings highlight a critical opportunity to leverage implementation science as a tool to strengthen the assessment and uptake of CCHA efforts in public health practice.
In the face of the accelerating climate crisis, there is an urgent need for implementation science and climate change and health experts to work together to overcome conceptual and operational challenges to the use of implementation science frameworks and methods to advance the field.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Sarah Biber, Sarah Gothard, Charles F Murchison, Laura McLeod, Kathryn Gauthreaux, Chandima HewaNadungodage, Emily Cheng, Jessica Welsch, Jessica E. Culhane, Sarah Yasuda, Hannah Stockwell, Shilpa Allimatti, Mark Bauer, Jonathan M. Reader, Walter Kukull, Meredith Zozus & Sudeshna Das
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: March 2026
The National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) and Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC) Program advances dementia research by collecting and sharing standardized, longitudinal data, including the Uniform Data Set with the global research community. To modernize workflow and accelerate the availability of analyzable data, we co-developed a consortium-wide Electronic Data Capture and Submission system.
A cross-disciplinary workgroup of ADRC and NACC members co-developed the system using a stakeholder-centered sociotechnical implementation model. Subgroups focused on requirements, development, and training. Surveys and pilot testing across centers guided design and priorities.
Research Electronic Data Capture was selected as the foundational platform. Deliverables included modular UDS version 4 instruments, embedded logic and automated quality checks, dynamic training resources, and an API-based submission pipeline to NACC. The platform was adopted across all 36 ADRCs and surveys indicated high user satisfaction.
Beyond infrastructure, this initiative provides a scalable, stakeholder-driven implementation model that supports higher-quality, more timely multicenter data submission, accelerating biomarker validation, early detection studies, and precision-medicine analyses.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Christopher G Kemp, Lauren White, Emily E HaroZ & Prof Donald Warne
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: December 2026
Implementation science is a diverse and evolving field that draws on multiple epistemologies and methods. However, the dominant foundations of implementation science remain settler colonial, biomedical, and positivist. In Indigenous and other marginalised settings, these foundations can result in poor epistemological, ethical, and practical fit. We argue that a paradigm shift that is grounded in Indigenous values, sovereignty, relationality, and epistemologies is needed. We propose seven guiding principles for a decolonising implementation science. Drawing from emerging scholarship and innovative Indigenous-led frameworks from the USA, Aotearoa New Zealand, and Australia, these principles centre sovereignty, strengths-based approaches, and relational accountability. These principles also offer a roadmap to redefine rigour, expand what counts as evidence, and ensure genuine community control over the research process. Although born from Indigenous experience, these principles provide a framework for transforming implementation science to be more just, equitable, and effective for marginalised communities globally.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Wentrell Bing, Ian Rodriguez, Anne Dudley, Emily Durkin, Nicolas Fernandez, Julia Finkelstein, Gwen Grimsby, Leslie McQuiston, Hans Pohl, Puneeta Ramachandra, Erica Traxel, Carmen Tong, Briony Varda, Jill Whitehouse & Jonathan S. Ellison
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: December 2025
Vera Yakovchenko, Chaeryon Kang, Brittney Neely, Carolyn Lamorte, Heather McCurdy, Dawn Scott, Anna Nobbe, Gwen Robins, Nsikak R. Ekanem, Monica Merante, Sandra Gibson, Patrick Spoutz, Linda Chia, Rachel I. Gonzalez, Matthew J. Chinman, David Ross, Maggie Chartier, Lauren A. Beste, Jasmohan S. Bajaj, Tamar Taddei, Timothy R. Morgan & Shari S. Rogal
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: December 2025
While guidelines recommend twice-yearly liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC) surveillance for people with cirrhosis, adherence to these guidelines remains variable. We aimed to empirically identify and apply successful implementation strategies through Getting to Implementation (GTI), a manualized facilitation approach.
A hybrid type III, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial was conducted at 12 underperforming Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites between October 2020 and October 2022. GTI included a stepwise approach to guide sites to detail their current state, set implementation goals, identify implementation barriers, select implementation strategies, make a work plan, conduct an evaluation, and sustain their work. Outcomes were defined using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.
Facilitators supported site teams with an average of 20±6 facilitation hours over a 12-month period. Ten of 12 sites (83%) adopted GTI and applied a median of five strategies (e.g., dashboard use, small tests of change, direct patient outreach). Reach, the primary outcome, increased from mean 29.1% to mean 38.8% at-risk Veterans receiving HCC surveillance from pre- to post-intervention, and further increasing to 41.3% in the sustainment period. In both unadjusted and adjusted models, the odds of HCC surveillance were significantly higher during intervention (adjusted odds ratio, aOR=1.67, 95% CI:1.59, 1.75) and during sustainment (aOR=1.69, 95% CI:1.60, 1.78) compared with baseline, and with difference between active and sustainment periods, indicating sustained improvement after active facilitation ended.
GTI sustainably improved HCC surveillance, suggesting that applying data-driven implementation strategies within a manualized facilitation approach can improve care.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Emily Callen, Susan M. Graham, Winter Forsyth, Nicola R. Gerbino, Zoë Senter, Brett Hauber, Bryan J. Weiner, Courtney Bagdon-Cox & Helen E. Jack
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: December 2025
Release from prison or jail is a high-risk time for HIV acquisition, yet prior efforts to expand access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and other HIV prevention services for people releasing from jail or prison have faced substantial implementation barriers.
Characterize the implementation landscape for HIV prevention for people releasing from prison or jail in Washington State, gathering input from staff at carceral institutions and community-based organizations to inform implementation of evidence-based HIV prevention strategies.
Qualitative study.
Healthcare and reentry staff in prisons and jails (n = 15) and staff at community-based organizations that may serve people releasing from jail or prison (n = 20), selected through chain referral sampling.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to theoretical saturation, then coded using a mixed inductive-deductive approach, based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
Carceral institutions had few programs aimed specifically at HIV prevention. Carceral institutions had PrEP available but did not offer it widely, focusing on behavioral health or acute medical needs. Some community-based organizations offered PrEP or other forms of HIV prevention, but many focused on meeting basic needs or building community. Five themes characterized the implementation landscape for HIV prevention: 1) primacy of basic needs means HIV prevention is lower priority, 2) adding HIV prevention programming would require new funding, 3) differences in culture and philosophy influence interest in providing PrEP, 4) disconnection between carceral institutions and providers in the community limits linkage to care, 5) organizations balance protecting confidentiality while coordinating care.
Rather than directly focusing on HIV prevention, carceral institutions and community-based organizations often focused on substance use disorder treatment, and there are opportunities to integrate additional HIV prevention education and interventions into substance use care. Closer relationships between carceral institutions and community organizations may improve care coordination but would require staff capacity.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Raúl D. Gierbolini-Rivera, Milena Franco Silva, Milena Franco Silva, Lorna Fabiola Pineda, Bryan J. Weiner, Byron J. Powell, Ross C. Brownson & Diana C. Parra
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: November 2025
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.
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.
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.
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**
Mariana Murea, Kristie L Foley, Samir C Gautam, Jennifer E Flythe , Jochen G Raimann, Emaad Abdel-Rahman, Alaa S Awad, Vandana Dua Niyyar, Cassandra Kovach, Glenda V Roberts, Nicole M Jefferson, Paul T Conway, Laura M Rosales, Jobira Woldemichael, Hiba I Sheikh, Gaurav Raman, Anne M Huml, Daphne H Knicely, Irtiza Hasan, Bhaktidevi Makadia , Janice Lea, John T Daugirdas, Nihan Gencerliler, Jasmin Divers, Peter Kotanko, TwoPlus Research Consortium & Ucheoma C Nwaozuru
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: November 2025
Process evaluation provides insight into how interventions are delivered across varying contexts and why interventions work in some contexts and not in others. This manuscript outlines the protocol for a process evaluation embedded in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomised clinical trial of incremental-start haemodialysis (HD) versus conventional HD delivered to patients starting chronic dialysis (the TwoPlus Study). The trial will simultaneously assess the effectiveness of incremental-start HD in real-world settings and the implementation strategies needed to successfully integrate this intervention into routine practice. This manuscript describes the rationale and methods used to capture how incremental-start HD is implemented across settings and the factors influencing its implementation success or failure within this trial.
We will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) frameworks to inform process evaluation. Mixed methods include surveys conducted with treating providers (physicians) and dialysis personnel (nurses and dialysis administrators); semi-structured interviews with patient participants, caregivers of patient participants, treating providers (physicians and advanced practice practitioners), dialysis personnel (nurses, dieticians and social workers); and focus group meetings with study investigators and stakeholder partners. Data will be collected on the following implementation determinants: (a) organisational readiness to change, intervention acceptability and appropriateness; (b) inner setting characteristics underlying barriers and facilitators to the adoption of HD intervention at the enrollment centres; (c) external factors that mediate implementation; (d) adoption; (e) reach; (f) fidelity, to assess adherence to serial timed urine collection and HD treatment schedule; and (g) sustainability, to assess barriers and facilitators to maintaining intervention. Qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed iteratively and triangulated following a convergent parallel and pragmatic approach. Mixed methods analysis will use qualitative data to lend insight to quantitative findings. Process evaluation is important to understand factors influencing trial outcomes and identify potential contextual barriers and facilitators for the potential implementation of incremental-start HD into usual workflows in varied outpatient dialysis clinics and clinical practices. The process evaluation will help interpret and contextualise the trial clinical outcomes’ findings.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Clayton English, Christian Helfrich, Jennifer L. Bacci, Julia Fox & Ashley C. Mog
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: November 2025
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.
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.
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.
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.
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**