'Hands on', 'hands off' or 'hands poised'? Exploring intrapartum midwifery decision making through ethnographic research.

ISSUE: Injury to the perineal tissues during childbirth is a frequent occurrence with most women likely to experience perineal injury during a first birth which, in some cases, can lead to significant long-term morbidity. The techniques used to minimise perineal injury are frequently termed 'hands on' and 'hands poised' or 'hands off'. These terms are often undefined and used inconsistently in the literature, making it difficult to identify the best available evidence to inform midwifery practice. AIM: This study aimed to answer the research questions: What do midwives do to minimise perineal injury during birth and what influences their decision-making? METHODS: An ethnographic study was undertaken during 2016 in a maternity unit in the southeast of England. Data were collected through participant-observation, ethnographic and semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis, informed by the pedagogic theory of threshold concepts. FINDINGS: 31 midwives participated in the study. Evidence-based decision-making to minimise perineal injury during birth was identified as a complex concept. Within the context of threshold concept theory, three main themes were identified that contributed to the complexity: troublesome language, troublesome knowledge, and troublesome environments. CONCLUSIONS: Midwifery decision-making in the context of minimising perineal injury during birth is more varied and conceptually complex than has been previously described. Identification of the various aspects of troublesomeness in this context suggests that this element of practice is a midwifery threshold concept. Addressing this within midwifery curricula and practice education to enable evidence-based decision-making is important.

Relationship between research activity and general practice performance: cross sectional and longitudinal analyses.

BACKGROUND: Research activity usually improves outcomes by being translated into practice. However, there is developing evidence that research activity itself may improve the overall performance of health care organisations. However, evidence that these relationships represent a causal impact of research activity is less clear. Additionally, the bulk of the existing evidence relates to hospital settings, and it is not known if those relationships would also be found in general practice, where most patient contacts occur. AIM: We sought to (a) test whether there were significant relationships between research activity in general practice and organisational performance (b) test whether those relationships were plausibly causal. DESIGN AND SETTING: We analysed national data between 2008 and 2019 using cross sectional and longitudinal analyses, on general practices in England. METHODS: We used cross-sectional, panel and instrumental variable analyses to explore relationships between research activity (including measures from the NIHR Clinical Research Network and the Royal College of General Practitioners) and practice performance (including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, prescribing quality and hospital admissions) Results: In cross-sectional analyses, research activity was positively associated with several measures of practice performance, including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, and reduced hospital admissions. The associations were generally modest in magnitude. However, longitudinal analyses did not support a reliable causal relationship. CONCLUSION: Similar to findings from hospital settings, research activity in general practice is associated with practice performance. There is less evidence that research is causing those improvements, although this may reflect the limited level of research activity in most practices. We identified no negative impacts, suggesting that research activity is a potential marker of quality and something that high quality practices can deliver alongside their core responsibilities.

A modified action framework to develop and evaluate academic-policy engagement interventions.

BACKGROUND: There has been a proliferation of frameworks with a common goal of bridging the gap between evidence, policy, and practice, but few aim to specifically guide evaluations of academic-policy engagement. We present the modification of an action framework for the purpose of selecting, developing and evaluating interventions for academic-policy engagement. METHODS: We build on the conceptual work of an existing framework known as SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In Health with Research: an Intervention Trial), developed for the evaluation of strategies intended to increase the use of research in health policy. Our aim was to modify SPIRIT, (i) to be applicable beyond health policy contexts, for example encompassing social, environmental, and economic policy impacts and (ii) to address broader dynamics of academic-policy engagement. We used an iterative approach through literature reviews and consultation with multiple stakeholders from Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and policy professionals working at different levels of government and across geographical contexts in England, alongside our evaluation activities in the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme. RESULTS: Our modifications expand upon Redman et al.'s original framework, for example adding a domain of 'Impacts and Sustainability' to capture continued activities required in the achievement of desirable outcomes. The modified framework fulfils the criteria for a useful action framework, having a clear purpose, being informed by existing understandings, being capable of guiding targeted interventions, and providing a structure to build further knowledge. CONCLUSION: The modified SPIRIT framework is designed to be meaningful and accessible for people working across varied contexts in the evidence-policy ecosystem. It has potential applications in how academic-policy engagement interventions might be developed, evaluated, facilitated and improved, to ultimately support the use of evidence in decision-making.

Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms which might underlie that relationship. AIM: To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity might impact on the performance of general practices. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England. METHOD: Individual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in 'research ready' or 'research active' general practices and 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a Framework approach. RESULTS: Participants described potential 'direct' and 'indirect' impacts on their work. 'Direct' impacts included research changing practice work (eg, additional records searches for particular conditions), bringing in additional resources (eg, access to investigations or staff) and improving relationships with patients. 'Indirect' impacts included job satisfaction (eg, perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout) and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Respondents identified few negative impacts. CONCLUSIONS: Staff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, respondents generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators.

'It depends': what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies to use to support the use of research in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of strategies have been developed to support the implementation of research into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to update and extend two previous reviews of systematic reviews of strategies designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice. METHODS: We developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the previous reviews to identify studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. The search was performed in June 2022 in four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a quality assessment checklist. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. Data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 32 reviews conducted between 2010 and 2022. The reviews are mainly of multi-faceted interventions (n = 20) although there are reviews focusing on single strategies (ICT, educational, reminders, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, social media and toolkits). The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Furthermore, a lot of nuance lies behind these headline findings, and this is increasingly commented upon in the reviews themselves. DISCUSSION: Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been identified. We need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of research perspectives (including social science) in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed.

What interventions should we implement in England's mental health services? The mental health implementation network (MHIN) mixed-methods approach to rapid prioritisation.

Introduction: Setting mental health priorities helps researchers, policy makers, and service funders improve mental health services. In the context of a national mental health implementation programme in England, this study aims to identify implementable evidence-based interventions in key priority areas to improve mental health service delivery. Methods: A mixed-methods research design was used for a three step prioritisation approach involving systematic scoping reviews (additional manuscript under development), expert consultations and data triangulation. Groups with diverse expertise, including experts by experience, worked together to improve decision-making quality by promoting more inclusive and comprehensive discussions. A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was used to combine participants' varied opinions, data and judgments about the data's relevance to the issues at hand during a decision conferencing workshop where the priorities were finalised. Results: The study identified mental health interventions in three mental health priority areas: mental health inequalities, child and adolescent mental health, comorbidities with a focus on integration of mental and physical health services and mental health and substance misuse problems. Key interventions in all the priority areas are outlined. The programme is putting some of these evidence-based interventions into action nationwide in each of these three priority mental health priority areas. Conclusion: We report an inclusive attempt to ensure that the list of mental health service priorities agrees with perceived needs on the ground and focuses on evidence-based interventions. Other fields of healthcare may also benefit from this methodological approach if they need to make rapid health-prioritisation decisions.

Exploring the issues that influence how people with rare neurological conditions engage in physical activity.

PURPOSE: People with rare neurological conditions (RNCs) struggle to achieve regular physical activity (PA). This study explored experiences of people with RNC engaging in PA, their carers, and health care professionals (HCPs) working with them. MATERIALS & METHODS: We developed three surveys: for individuals living with RNCs, their carers, and HCPs working with them. Themes from interviews with RNC charity representatives were used to co-design questions, together with people living with RNCs, their representatives, and an expert panel. Surveys were disseminated via charity mailing lists, social media accounts, and professional networks (HCPs). RESULTS: We received 436 responses (225 people with RNC, 94 carers, 117 HCPs). Most respondents with RNC achieved some level of regular PA but needed motivation to maintain it. Many felt they lacked knowledge on starting and staying active, with scarce resources and support. Most HCP respondents worked in specialist services, and overwhelmingly agreed that people with RNC should be physically active, while acknowledging lack of evidence and resources. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key barriers at environmental/organisational, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels, highlighting a critical lack of support for people with RNC across UK health services. These factors can be targeted to increase engagement in PA.Implications for rehabilitationPeople living with rare neurological conditions experience barriers to engaging in physical activity, with some common to more prevalent neurological diseases, e.g. access and facilities, but some notable differences due to the rarity of the conditionFor people living with rare neurological conditions, and their carers, there is a lack of knowledge on safe and appropriate engagement in physical activityIncreasing the knowledge of health and exercise professionals may improve how they support people with rare neurological disease to engage with physical activity.Evidence based resources and recommendations for people living with rare neurological conditions, and professionals working with them, may facilitate engagement in physical activity.

Peer coaching, implementation support and organisational power.

This article looks at the effects of power (conceived as complex and multi-directional) on the collaborative, interprofessional relationships of peer coaches when delivering implementation support. The study conducted ethnographic observations, semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis to evaluate the dynamics of peer coaching during the implementation of an evidence-based programme, Patient and Family Centred Care (PFCC), to improve 24 end-of-life care services. The article draws on perspectives from critical management studies to offer insights on the effect of organisational power on collaborations during the administration of peer coaching. This article details the difficulties that organisational power structures posed to interprofessional peer-coaching collaborations. Many of the peer coaches found it difficult to place their advice in the existing ethos of organisations, existing organisational hierarchies, or collaborate in the midst of staff turnover and general time management outside of their control. These considerations meant that successful peer-coaching collaborations and the success of the implementation programme were often divergent.

Protocol for a hybrid II study exploring the feasibility of delivering, evaluating, and implementing a self-management programme for people with neuromuscular diseases at a specialist neuromuscular centre.

BACKGROUND: Self-management support (SMS) forms a central pillar in the management of long-term conditions. It is firmly aligned with UK health policy but there is a paucity of evidence exploring how it is enacted in the context of neuromuscular diseases (NMDs). Bridges is a SMS programme originally developed in stroke. A new version of the programme (Neuromuscular Bridges) has recently been co-designed with people with lived experience of NMD and requires evaluation. The implementation of SMS is inherently complex with potential barriers at the level of the patient, provider, and wider organisation. The success of implementing programmes can be highly dependent on context, indicating a rationale for considering implementation determinants at an early stage. This study aims to explore the feasibility of (1) delivering, (2) evaluating, and (3) implementing Neuromuscular Bridges at a specialist neuromuscular centre. METHODS: This study employs a hybrid II design underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), which has been used prospectively to inform the implementation plan and will also inform the analysis. The feasibility of delivering, evaluating, and implementing Neuromuscular Bridges will be assessed using a single-arm pre-post design. In terms of delivery and evaluation, we will explore acceptability, demand within the service, performance of outcome measures, recruitment, and retention. Implementation strategies have been selected from a refined taxonomy of strategies, mapped to NPT, and targeted at known barriers and facilitators at the specialist centre that were identified from preliminary stakeholder engagement activities. The impact of the strategy bundle on fidelity, acceptability, appropriateness, and adoption will be evaluated using qualitative interviews, administrative data, surveys, and a notes audit. CONCLUSIONS: This this study will provide valuable feasibility data on a co-designed SMS programme for people with NMDs that will be used to inform a larger implementation study, requirements for embedding it in a specialist centre, and rollout to other specialist centres. Using hybrid methodology at the feasibility stage is unusual and this study will provide important insights into the usefulness of taking this approach at this point in the research pipeline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Trial ID: ISRCTN14208138 . Date registered: 18/08/2021.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Implementation Science Research Project Appraisal Criteria (ImpResPAC) tool: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The need for quantitative criteria to appraise the quality of implementation research has recently been highlighted to improve methodological rigour. The Implementation Science Research development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide provide methodological guidance and recommendations on how to design high-quality implementation research. This protocol reports on the development of the Implementation Science Research Project Appraisal Criteria (ImpResPAC) tool, a quantitative appraisal tool, developed based on the structure and content of the ImpRes tool and supplementary guide, to evaluate the conceptual and methodological quality of implementation research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study employs a three-stage sequential mixed-methods design. During stage 1, the research team will map core domains of the ImpRes tool, guidance and recommendations contained in the supplementary guide and within the literature, to ImpResPAC. In stage 2, an international multidisciplinary expert group, recruited through purposive sampling, will inform the refinement of ImpResPAC, including content, scoring system and user instructions. In stage 3, an extensive psychometric evaluation of ImpResPAC, that was created in stage 1 and refined in stage 2, will be conducted. The scaling assumptions (inter-item and item-total correlations), reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater) and validity (construct and convergent validity) will be investigated by applying ImpResPAC to 50 protocols published in Implementation Science. We envisage developing ImpResPAC in this way will provide implementation research stakeholders, primarily grant reviewers and educators, a comprehensive, transparent and fair appraisal of the conceptual and methodological quality of implementation research, increasing the likelihood of funding research that will generate knowledge and contribute to the advancement of the field. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will involve human participants. This study has been registered and minimal risk ethical clearance granted by The Research Ethics Office, King's College London (reference number MRA-20/21-20807). Participants will receive written information on the study via email and will provide e-consent if they wish to participate. We will use traditional academic modalities of dissemination (eg, conferences and publications).

Theory-based evaluation of three research-practice partnerships designed to deliver novel, sustainable collaborations between adult social care research and practice in the UK: a research protocol for a 'layered' contributions analysis and realist evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are long-term collaborations between research and practice that aim to conduct research that can be used to make practice-based improvements. They intentionally bring together diverse experience in decision making and seek to shift power dynamics so that all partners have a say. The Creating Care Partnerships project aims to explore whether the RPP approach developed within the US educational context can be successfully applied to the English care home context. The project involves a programme of codesign, implementation and evaluation within three case study sites. This protocol set outs the aims, research design and governance of the evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The evaluation takes a theory-based approach to explore how, why and in what circumstances RPPs in the care home context contribute to enhancing research and research use in local care homes and informing wider improvement efforts. A mixed-methods design will be used for each case study, including semistructured interviews, observations of RPP events and meetings, an online survey, activity diary and review of local data and documents. Data collection will proceed in waves, with the theory of change (ToC) being continually refined and used to guide further data collection and analysis. Insights will be drawn using Contribution Analysis, Realist Evaluation and systems perspectives to assess the contribution made by the case study sites to achieving outcomes and the influence of contextual factors. Economic consequences will be identified through the ToC, using a narrative economic analysis to assess costs, consequences and value for money. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has undergone ethics review by HRA Research Ethics Committee. It does not pose major ethical issues. A final report will be published and articles will be submitted to international journals.

Defining, conceptualizing and evaluating pragmatic qualities of quantitative instruments measuring implementation determinants and outcomes: a scoping and critical review of the literature and recommendations for future research.

The pragmatic (i.e., practical) quality of quantitative implementation measures has received increased attention in the implementation science literature in recent years. Implementation measures that are judged to be pragmatic by implementation stakeholders are thought to be more likely to be applied in research and practice. Despite the need for pragmatic implementation measures, ambiguity and uncertainty regarding what constitutes a pragmatic measure remains. This study sought to identify and critically appraise the published literature to understand (i) how pragmatism is defined as a measurement construct/quality of implementation determinants and outcome instruments; (ii) how pragmatic qualities of instruments are evaluated; (iii) identify key gaps and limitations of the current evidence-base and (iv) identify recommendations for future research. We conducted a scoping review of the literature also employing methods of critical review. PubMed and PsycINFO databases, using the OVID interface, were searched for relevant articles published between January 2010 and September 2020. Articles that contained a definition and/or described characteristics of "pragmatism" as a measurement construct of quantitative implementation outcomes (as defined by Proctor's Implementation Outcomes taxonomy) and/or implementation determinants were eligible for inclusion. Nine articles met inclusion criteria. A degree of overlap in definitions and terms used to describe the pragmatic qualities of quantitative implementation determinant and outcome instruments were found. The most frequently cited descriptors of pragmatism were "not burdensome", "brief", "reliable", "valid" and "sensitive to change". 3 of the 9 included articles involved international implementation stakeholders in defining and conceptualizing pragmatism and employed specific methods to do so, including a systematic literature review, stakeholder interviews, concept mapping, and a Delphi process. All other articles defined pragmatism, with or without citing relevant literature. One article objectively assessed the pragmatic qualities, above and beyond the psychometric qualities, of implementation measures, using the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS). The evidence base within the implementation instrumentation literature on what pragmatism is and how it might be assessed is limited. Some of the research identified in the review provides a strong foundation to build upon, by testing its applicability in other settings (including healthcare areas and countries) and among a more diverse group of stakeholders. We discuss directions for further development of the concept of pragmatism relating to the measurement of implementation determinants and outcomes.

The need for pragmatic (i.e., practical) measures to evaluate implementation efforts has been repeatedly called for in the implementation science literature. This literature review focuses on understanding how pragmatism, as a measurement construct and quality of implementation measures, is defined, conceptualized and evaluated. We identified few articles (n = 9) that contribute to our understanding of how pragmatism is defined and evaluated. We found that the most frequently used terms to describe pragmatic qualities of implementation measures include "not burdensome", "brief", "reliable", "valid" and "sensitive to change". We identified one scale, the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS), developed to measure the pragmatic quality, as well as psychometric quality, of implementation measures. We identified several gaps and limitations of the current evidence-base and offer directions to further develop the concept and appraisal of pragmatism. Specifically, we recommend that future research focus on engaging and involving a wider diversity of implementation stakeholders in defining and conceptualizing pragmatism as well as subjecting existing pragmatic assessment measures to more rigorous and extensive evaluation.

What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research.

As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public.

Is implementation research out of step with implementation practice? Pathways to effective implementation support over the last decade.

Background: There is growing interest in the lived experience of professionals who provide implementation support (i.e., implementation support practitioners). However, there remains limited knowledge about their experiences and how those experiences can contribute to the knowledge base on what constitutes successful and sustainable implementation support models. This study aimed to examine pathways of implementation support practice, as described by experienced professionals actively supporting systems' uptake and sustainment of evidence to benefit children and families. Methods: Seventeen individuals with extensive experience providing implementation support in various settings participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and episode profile analysis approaches. Iterative diagramming was used to visualize the various pathways of implementation support practitioners' role reflection and transformation evidenced by the interview data. Results: Findings highlighted rich pathways of implementation support practitioners' role reflection and transformation. Participants described their roots in providing implementation support as it relates to implementing and expanding the use of evidence-based programs and practices in child and family services. Almost all participants reflected on the early stages of their careers providing implementation support and described a trajectory starting with the use of "push models," which evolved into "pull models" and eventually "co-creation or exchange models" of implementation support involving both technical and relational skills. Conclusions: Developing an implementation support workforce will require a deeper understanding of this lived experience to prevent repeated use of strategies observed to be unsuccessful by those most proximal to the work. The pathways for implementation practice in this study highlight impressive leaps forward in the field of implementation over the last 15 years and speaks to the importance of the professionals leading change efforts in this growth. Plain Language Summary: Over the past few years, professionals in the field of implementation science have identified a growing gap between implementation research and implementation practice. While this issue has been highlighted informally, the field is lacking a shared understanding and clear way forward to reconcile this gap. In this paper, the authors describe how professionals providing implementation support have shifted their implementation practice over time through systematic observations of what works (and what does not work) for supporting and sustaining evidence use in service systems to improve population outcomes. The authors share the impressive leaps forward made in the field of implementation practice - from didactic training to responsive and tailored implementation strategies to co-created and relationship-based implementation solutions. The paper concludes with a call to action to the field for the creation of a virtuous learning cycle between professionals conducting implementation research and professionals providing implementation support to change practice as a way to produce a more robust and relevant science of implementation.

Building trusting relationships to support implementation: A proposed theoretical model.

This paper presents a theory of change that articulates (a) proposed strategies for building trust among implementation stakeholders and (b) the theoretical linkages between trusting relationships and implementation outcomes. The theory of change describes how trusting relationships cultivate increases in motivation, capability, and opportunity for supporting implementation among implementation stakeholders, with implications for commitment and resilience for sustained implementation, and ultimately, positive implementation outcomes. Recommendations related to the measurement of key constructs in the theory of change are provided. The paper highlights how the development of a testable causal model on trusting relationships and implementation outcomes can provide a bridge between implementation research and implementation practice.

Intervening for sustainable change: Tailoring strategies to align with values and principles of communities.

This paper presents a rationale for tailoring implementation strategies within a values-driven implementation approach. Values-driven implementation seeks to organize implementers around clarifying statements of their shared values in ways that harmonize implementation dynamics related to individual and group mental models, relationships among implementers, and the implementation climate. The proposed approach to tailoring strategies is informed by systems theory and emphasizes the need to focus on both tangible events and behaviors, as well deeper patterns, structures, relationships, and mental models, in order to increase the likelihood of sustaining implementation efforts and improving outcomes for people and communities. We offer for consideration three specific sets of context determinants that are under-represented in the implementation literature and that emerge as especially relevant within a systems approach to identifying and successfully tailoring implementation strategies in the implementation setting including relationships, mental models, and implementation climate.

The role of leadership in implementing and sustaining an evidence-based intervention for osteoarthritis (ESCAPE-pain) in NHS physiotherapy services: a qualitative case study.

PURPOSE: To explore the role of leadership by physiotherapists in implementing and sustaining an evidence-based complex intervention (ESCAPE-pain) for osteoarthritis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative case study approach using in-depth interviews with 23 clinicians and managers from 4 National Health Service (NHS) physiotherapy providers in England between 2016 and 2017. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Different leadership roles and actions were characterised with four themes: (1) Clinical champions - clinicians driving the sustainability of ESCAPE-pain; (2) Supporters - junior clinicians directly supporting clinical champions' efforts to sustain ESCAPE-pain; (3) Senior Manager - clinical champions' senior managers influence on sustainability; (4) Decision-making - (in)formal processes underpinning decisions to (not) sustain the programme. CONCLUSIONS: The study characterises the role of leadership in physiotherapy to sustain an evidence-based intervention for osteoarthritis (OA) within the NHS. Sustaining the intervention required on-going leadership, it did not stop at implementation. Senior specialist physiotherapists (as Champions) had a critical leadership role in driving sustainability. Their structural position (bridging the operational and strategic) and personal attributes allowed them to integrate different levels of leadership (i.e., senior managers and operational staff) to mobilise the collective, on-going work required for sustaining the programme.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONSenior managers and clinicians in practice settings need to be aware that sustaining an intervention is an on-going, collective effort that continues post-implementation.Senior managers need to enable senior clinicians (who straddle strategic and operational functions) to have sufficient autonomy to access and mobilise resources and scope to restructure local systems and practice to support intervention sustainability.Operational staff need to be supported to have the practical know-how to deliver evidence-based intervention, which includes instilling the value of and a commitment for the interventions.Managers need to utilise dispersed leadership to empower and enthuse frontline clinicians to participate fully in the work to refine and sustain interventions, because it cannot be achieved by lone individuals.

Influence of commissioning arrangements on implementing and sustaining a complex healthcare intervention (ESCAPE-pain) for osteoarthritis: a qualitative case study.

OBJECTIVES: Funding in health care has a critical impact on the implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions. This study explored the perspectives of physiotherapists on the influence of commissioning arrangements on the implementation and sustainability of a group rehabilitation programme for osteoarthritis (ESCAPE-pain). DESIGN: A qualitative case study approach using in-depth interviews. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) musculoskeletal (MSK) outpatient departments in England. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty physiotherapists in clinical and senior management roles from 11 NHS MSK providers. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: (1) clinical perspectives of ESCAPE-pain - MSK services wanted to implement and sustain ESCAPE-pain because it provided evidence-based, quality care; (2) focusing on clinical activity over outcomes - commissioners were perceived as prioritising activity-based performance over delivering clinical outcomes; (3) rationing availability - patient access to ESCAPE-pain could be limited due to rationing resources; (4) absorbing costs - contracts did not always cover the activities associated with delivering ESCAPE-pain meaning that providers bore the costs; and (5) relationship between commissioners and providers - physiotherapists perceived a disconnect with commissioners and had little power to influence decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Commissioning arrangements for MSK physiotherapy services can impede providers from implementing and sustaining a clinically and cost-effective intervention. To be implemented and sustained, an intervention needs to integrate into clinical practice and the wider healthcare system. Commissioning arrangements for MSK physiotherapy need to allow providers the flexibility to deliver interventions that best meet the needs of their patients. The move to more strategic, integrated, outcome-based commissioning has the potential to facilitate the spread and sustainability of interventions.

Proposing a Core Outcome Set for Physical Activity and Exercise Interventions in People With Rare Neurological Conditions.

Rare neurological conditions (RNCs) encompass a variety of diseases that differ in progression and symptoms but typically include muscle weakness, sensory and balance impairment and difficulty with coordinating voluntary movement. This can limit overall physical activity, so interventions to address this are recommended. The aim of this study was to agree a core outcome measurement set for physical activity interventions in people living with RNCs. We followed established guidelines to develop core outcome sets. Broad ranging discussions in a series of stakeholder workshops led to the consensus that (1) physical well-being; (2) psychological well-being and (3) participation in day-to-day activities should be evaluated in interventions. Recommendations were further informed by a scoping review of physical activity interventions for people living with RNCs. Nearly 200 outcome measures were identified from the review with a specific focus on activities or functions (e.g, on lower limb function, ability to perform daily tasks) but limited consideration of participation based outcomes (e.g., social interaction, work and leisure). Follow on searches identified two instruments that matched the priority areas: the Oxford Participation and Activities Questionnaire and the Sources of Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity. We propose these scales as measures to assess outcomes that are particularly relevant to assess when evaluating physical activity interventions mong people with RNCs. Validation work across rare neurological conditions is now required to inform application of this core outcome set in future clinical trials to facilitate syntheses of results and meta-analyses.