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
Nicholas R. Murphy, Kristina Crothers, Madison Snidarich, Jehan Z. Budak, Meagan C. Brown, Bryan J. Weiner, Nicholas Giustini, Tanner Caverly, Katherine Durette, Katie DeCell, and Matthew Triplette
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: July 2024
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**
Kyle S. Bilodeau, Frank F. Yang, Michael Shang, Audrey Mossman, David C. Mauchley, Scott DeRoo, & Christopher R. Burke
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: May 2024
The Ross procedure is a technically complex operation to address the pathology of the aortic valve. Prior attempts at widespread implementation have been plagued with variations in effectiveness. We report our initial programmatic outcomes using dissemination and implementation (D&I) science frameworks, with an aim to define both programmatic efficacy and effectiveness. The study design was a single center, explanatory sequential mixed methods evaluation of a Ross surgery program from June 2020 to April 2023. Quantitative measures for baseline patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were summarized. Qualitative measures were obtained using semi-structured interviews and characterized using implementation science frameworks.
A total of 71 patients underwent the Ross procedure at a single academic center. Mean age was 40 years (± 13). There were no perioperative deaths or valve-related reinterventions (0%). During the follow-up period, 2 (2.8%) patients required re-operation and 2 (2.8%) required balloon dilation of the pulmonary homograft. Qualitative measures noted communication and prospective self-audit facilitated measures of effectiveness, as dichotomy within expected vs. observed outcomes led to program modifications. Collaboration across hospital systems promoted adoption and implementation, which led to the incorporation of the Ross procedure into accepted organizational practice.
In this formative evaluation, limited-efficacy outcomes demonstrated similar programmatic success to data from other established centers. With the prerequisite center volume and case selection, the Ross procedure is a safe and efficacious treatment for aortic valvular disease. Implementation science can be used both in real-time and retrospectively to guide organizational efforts to improve outcomes and to improve the translation of results across centers.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Noah S. Triplett, Anne Mbwayo, Sharon Kiche, Enoch Sackey, Rashed AlRasheed, Daisy Anyango Okoth, Omariba Anne Nyaboke, Cyrilla Amanya & Shannon Dorsey
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: May 2024
Implementation science and human-centered design (HCD) offer useful frameworks and methods for considering and designing for individuals' needs and preferences when implementing new interventions or technologies in global health. When used in tandem, the two approaches may blend creative and partnered research methods with a focus on the factors necessary to design, implement, and sustain interventions. However, research is needed that describes the process of blending these two approaches and explores the experiences of community partners. This study builds from a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in Western Kenya, wherein teachers and community health volunteers have been trained to provide trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT). Mobile phones emerged as a tool to supervise lay counselors from afar; however, their use was characterized by unique challenges. Informed by human-centered design and implementation science, we first engaged lay counselors (n = 24) and supervisors (n = 3) in individual semi-structured interviews then hosted an in-person participatory workshop to “co-design” solutions to optimize the use of mobile phone supervision. Lay counselors participated in focus group discussions regarding their experiences in the workshop. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. We describe our approach as well as focus group discussion results. Counselors felt the workshop was a valuable experience to learn new strategies from their colleagues, and they enjoyed the “collaborative spirit” that emerged as they worked together. Counselors felt that varying small and large group discussions fostered participation by creating opportunities for more people to engage and share their thoughts. Counselors suggested the approach be improved by providing more tangible materials (e.g., hand-outs) and more closely following a schedule of activities. It is important to also center stakeholders’ experiences as partners in the research process. Though counselors largely expressed positive sentiments, they also shared valuable suggestions for how to improve participatory research practices in the future.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Sarah Cusworth Walker, Kym R. Ahrens, Mandy D. Owens, McKenna Parnes, Joe Langley, Christine Ackerley, Jonathan Purtle, Lisa Saldana, Gregory A. Aarons, Aaron Hogue & Lawrence A. Palinkas
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: May 2024
Policymaking is quickly gaining focus in the field of implementation science as a potential opportunity for aligning cross-sector systems and introducing incentives to promote population health, including substance use disorders (SUD) and their prevention in adolescents. Policymakers are seen as holding the necessary levers for realigning service infrastructure to more rapidly and effectively address adolescent behavioral health across the continuum of need (prevention through crisis care, mental health, and SUD) and in multiple locations (schools, primary care, community settings). The difficulty of aligning policy intent, policy design, and successful policy implementation is a well-known challenge in the broader public policy and public administration literature that also affects local behavioral health policymaking. This study will examine a blended approach of coproduction and codesign (i.e., Policy Codesign), iteratively developed over multiple years to address problems in policy formation that often lead to poor implementation outcomes. The current study evaluates this scalable approach using reproducible measures to grow the knowledge base in this field of study.
This is a single-arm, longitudinal, staggered implementation study to examine the acceptability and short-term impacts of Policy Codesign in resolving critical challenges in behavioral health policy formation. The aims are to (1) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and reach of Policy Codesign within two geographically distinct counties in Washington state, USA; (2) examine the impact of Policy Codesign on multisector policy development within these counties using social network analysis; and (3) assess the perceived replicability of Policy Codesign among leaders and other staff of policy-oriented state behavioral health intermediary organizations across the USA.
This study will assess the feasibility of a specific approach to collaborative policy development, Policy Codesign, in two diverse regions. Results will inform a subsequent multi-state study measuring the impact and effectiveness of this approach for achieving multi-sector and evidence informed policy development in adolescent SUD prevention and treatment.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Rachel B Issaka, Ari Bell-Brown, Talor Hopkins, Lisa D Chew, Lisa L Strate, Bryan J Weiner; Endoscopy Rideshare Working Group
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: May 2024
John C. Fortney, Geoffrey M. Curran, Aaron R. Lyon, Devon K. Check & David R. Flum
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: April 2024
Alexander Lankowski, Deanna Tollefson, Hugo Sánchez, Robinson Cabello, José Hidalgo, Mary N Mathison, Yamilé Molina & Ann Duerr
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: April 2024
Despite being at elevated risk for HIV, men who have sex with transgender women (MSTW) are an overlooked population in the global HIV response. Venue-based HIV interventions have previously had success reaching other HIV priority populations, including transgender women (TW). Similar approaches could be applied for MSTW.
To evaluate the prospective acceptability of venue-based HIV testing and prevention interventions for MSTW and TW in Lima, Peru.
In this exploratory qualitative study, we conducted in-depth interviews (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGD) with three types of participants: MSTW (7 IDIs, 1 FGD), TW (1 FGD), and owners of social venues frequented by MSTW/TW in Lima (2 IDIs). We elicited participants’ attitudes and perceptions related to the following four hypothetical interventions delivered at social venues in Lima: rapid HIV testing; HIV self-test distribution; condom/lubricant distribution; and enrolment in a mobile app supporting HIV prevention. We performed a mixed deductive-inductive thematic analysis using the framework method, then applied the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability to classify the overall acceptability of each intervention.
Condom/lubricant distribution and app-based HIV prevention information were highly acceptable among all participant types. The two HIV testing interventions had relatively lower acceptability; however, participants suggested this could be overcome if such interventions focused on ensuring discretion, providing access to healthcare professionals, and offering appropriate incentives.
Overall, MSTW and TW shared similar favourable attitudes towards venue-based HIV interventions. Venue-based outreach warrants further exploration as a strategy for engaging MSTW and TW in HIV prevention activities.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**