Qualitative Evaluation of a Quality Improvement Collaborative Implementation to Improve Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment in Nova Scotia, Canada.

The Atlantic Canada Together Enhancing Acute Stroke Treatment (ACTEAST) project is a modified quality improvement collaborative (mQIC) designed to improve ischemic stroke treatment rates and efficiency in Atlantic Canada. This study evaluated the implementation of the mQIC in Nova Scotia using qualitative methods. The mQIC spanned 6 months, including two learning sessions, webinars, and a per-site virtual visit. The learning sessions featured presentations about the project and the improvement efforts at some sites. Each session included an action planning period where the participants planned for the implementation efforts over the following 2 to 4 months, called "action periods". Eleven hospitals and Emergency Health Services (EHS) of Nova Scotia participated. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was utilized to develop a semi-structured interview guide to uncover barriers and facilitators to mQIC's implementation. Interviews were conducted with 14 healthcare professionals from 10 entities, generating 458 references coded into 28 CFIR constructs. The interviews started on 17 June 2021, 2 months after the intervention period, and ended on 7 October 2021. Notably, 84% of these references were positively framed as facilitators., highlighting the various aspects of the mQIC and its context that supported successful implementation. These facilitators encompassed factors such as networks and communications, strong leadership engagement, and a collaborative culture. Significant barriers included resource availability, relative priorities, communication challenges, and engaging key stakeholders. Some barriers were prominent during specific phases. The study provides insights into quality improvement initiatives in stroke care, reflecting the generally positive opinions of the interviewees regarding the mQIC. While the quantitative analysis is still ongoing, this study highlights the importance of addressing context-specific barriers and leveraging the identified facilitators for successful implementation.

Providers' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to scale-up of mental health care in the public health delivery system of Mozambique: a qualitative inquiry.

BACKGROUND: A central challenge to closing the mental health treatment gap in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is determining the most effective pathway for delivering evidence-based mental health services. We are conducting a cluster-randomized, Type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial across 20 districts of Mozambique called the Partnerships in Research to Implement and Disseminate Sustainable and Scalable EBPs (PRIDE) program. Following training of nonspecialized providers in facilitation of evidence-based treatments for mental health and informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we identified how PRIDE compares to care as usual and the perceived barriers and facilitators of implementation and modifications needed for widescale service delivery and scale-up. METHODS: We conducted rapid ethnographic assessment using freelisting among 34 providers, followed by four focus group discussions (n = 29 participants) with a subsample of psychiatric technicians and primary care providers from 14 districts in Nampula Province. We used Thematic Analysis to inductively apply open codes to transcripts and then deductively applied the CFIR domains and constructs to organize open codes. RESULTS: The main Outer Setting constructs relevant to implementation were recognition that patient mental health needs were significant. Additionally, numerous community-level characteristics were identified as barriers, including distance between clinics; shortage of providers; and low awareness of mental health problems, stigma, and discrimination among community members towards those with mental health struggles. The PRIDE program was perceived to offer a relative advantage over usual care because of its use of task-sharing and treating mental illness in the community. PRIDE addressed Inner Setting barriers of having available resources and training and provider low self-efficacy and limited knowledge of mental illness. Providers recommended leadership engagement to give support for supervision of other task-shared professionals delivering mental healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers and psychiatric technicians in Mozambique perceived the relative advantage of the PRIDE program to address mental health treatment access barriers and offered recommendations for successful sustainment and scale up of integrated mental health care.

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing HIV Testing and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Substance Use Treatment Programs: Perspectives of Non-medical Staff.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorder (SUD) are at increased risk of HIV infection. HIV testing and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are evidence-based practices to prevent HIV infection, yet these approaches are not regularly provided in SUD treatment programs. To address this evidence-to-practice gap, this study aimed to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing PrEP services in SUD treatment programs from the perspective of non-medical staff and administrators. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted from February to June 2022 with non-medical staff (N = 10) and administrators (N = 11) from 3 academic and 8 community-based SUD treatment programs in Philadelphia. Interview guides were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Qualitative descriptive techniques were used to examine interview data and identify key facilitators and barriers, which were grouped within CFIR domains and constructs. RESULTS: Of the 11 SUD treatment programs, 5 provided PrEP services. Most interviewees at programs without PrEP services reported high levels of receptivity to implementing PrEP and identified leadership engagement as a key determinant, but several lacked comfort with PrEP counseling. Inner setting facilitators included compatibility with workflows (eg, intake assessments), alignment with cultures of holistic care, and programs' longstanding community trust. Inner setting barriers included limited time to discuss PrEP, insufficient resources and staff (eg, phlebotomy), perception of clients' HIV risk, and lower prioritization of HIV prevention versus other services. Intervention facilitators included robust evidence and addressing costs through grants and drug pricing programs, and barriers included the time needed to initiate PrEP, loss to follow-up, and HIV stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of HIV testing and PrEP in SUD treatment programs requires addressing multi-level barriers. Including perspectives of non-medical staff and administrators is important for implementation. Potential strategies include supporting organizational networks, leveraging peer specialists' expertise, and packaging PrEP to better meet client priorities and needs.

Evaluating the Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing a Novel Referral System for Outpatient Geriatric Services: The Geri-Hub Quality Improvement Initiative.

Background: In healthcare systems prioritizing care of older adults, resource limitations and escalating demand often impede access to outpatient specialized geriatric services. Objectives: This study, theoretically guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), aimed to explore barriers and facilitators in implementing a centralized "Geri-Hub." The Geri-Hub is a centralized intake system established within 2 hospital systems to coordinate outpatient and community-based services for older adults, aiming to connect them with the most appropriate care in a timely manner. Methods: Qualitative insights were gathered from healthcare professionals at 2 academic institutions in the process of consolidating services. Through open-ended surveys and semi-structured interviews, we solicited feedback on referral management, waiting times, and overall work experiences. Results: Thirteen frequently referring providers and a cohort of 9 geriatricians, along with 4 administrators, contributed to the study. Geriatricians emphasized streamlined referrals, flexible scheduling for urgent cases, and a target wait time of 3 months. Administrators stressed standardized referral procedures, defined roles, and accessible referral information. Discussion: The findings underscored the need for straightforward referral processes, enhanced communication on referral statuses, and reduced wait times. Optimizing these processes could potentially mitigate resource utilization issues and improve patient outcomes in healthcare systems. This research highlights the critical role of timely access to geriatric services during transformative phases in healthcare delivery.

"Sometimes it can be like an icebreaker": A mixed method evaluation of the implementation of the Refugee Health Screener-13 (RHS-13).

Background: Forced migrants are at risk of developing mental illness, yet challenges remain with underutilization of mental healthcare among this population. This study examined the implementation of the Refugee Health Screener-13 (RHS-13) in the health assessment for forced migrants in eight primary health care centres in Stockholm Region, Sweden. Methods: A mixed-methods convergent parallel design was used, combining nurses self-reported quantitative data on the levels and reasons for RHS-13 use in the health assessment with qualitative interview data on the barriers and facilitators for RHS-13 use. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a coding framework for the qualitative analysis. Results: Levels of RHS-13 use varied between primary health care centres, resulting in two groups: three centres with high-level (65-92%) and five centres with low-level (0-36%) implementation. Factors related to the tool itself, as well as the inner and outer context, influenced the use of RHS-13. Language barriers, insufficient time, and lack of trust in the validity and utility of RHS-13 were the main barriers, while its availability in many languages and that it was perceived as an important complement to the health assessment were the main facilitators. Conclusion: RHS-13 contributes to the standardization of assessing mental health in the health assessment. Identifying context-based implementation strategies and addressing language and time issues as well as nurses trust in the tool's utility are recommended to enhance the use of RHS-13.

"Because that is the right thing to do": A focus group study of Australian expert perspectives on offering smoking cessation support in lung cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening (LCS) trials, targeting people with smoking history, have demonstrated reduced mortality. How to optimally embed evidence-based smoking cessation support in LCS, including in Australia, needs to be better understood. We sought experts' perspectives to identify potential barriers and effective implementation strategies. METHODS: Perceptions of providing smoking cessation support in LCS were elicited in 24 focus groups and three individual interviews with clinicians, cancer screening program managers/policymakers, and researchers during 2021. We conducted framework analysis and mapped key topics to the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Experts (N=84 participants) strongly supported capitalising on an "opportune time" for smoking cessation and new LCS participant contact opportunities throughout the screening and assessment pathway. Many advocated for adapting existing cessation resources to the LCS setting and providing support without participant costs. Experts generally considered referral alone to established programs (e.g., telephone Quitline) as insufficient, but likely helpful in follow-up, and dedicated cessation specialist roles as essential. Broader cessation messaging (via mass media/community channels) was also suggested to reinforce individualised support. Experts described inherent alignment, and an ethical responsibility, to deliver smoking cessation as a core LCS component. It was suggested that LCS-eligible participants' varied experiences of stigma, health literacy, and motivation, be considered in cessation supports. Primary care support and individualised interventions were suggested to facilitate implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Experts considered smoking cessation support essential in LCS. The expert-identified and multi-level implementation strategies described here can directly inform smoking cessation-specific planning for Australia's forthcoming National LCS Program. IMPLICATIONS: The international literature includes few examples considering how best to provide smoking cessation support within a lung cancer screening (LCS) program in advance of program commencement. Our analysis, using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, is one of the first to explore experts' perspectives within this context. Experts identified multiple implementation barriers to providing smoking cessation support within and outside of an Australian LCS program, including key work infrastructure barriers, and advocated for providing tailored interventions within this program. Our foundational work in a new targeted screening program's pre-implementation phase will allow international comparisons to be made.

Building capacity for local public health: lessons from a mixed-methods evaluation of an academic-public health partnership used in response to COVID-19.

Introduction: The Massachusetts Academic Health Department Consortium (AHD) established the Academic Public Health Volunteer Corps (APHVC) to support Local Health Departments (LHDs, n = 351) to meet rapidly emerging needs during the COVID-19 pandemic through engaging student volunteers. A program evaluation captured lessons learned and informed recommendations for sustainability and future replication. Methods: The mixed-methods evaluation leveraged the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were stratified by LHD engagement with APHVC. Quantitative surveys informed probes for qualitative focus groups and interviews; findings were categorized into CFIR constructs using a deductive approach. Results: One-fifth of LHDs (n = 76, 27 used APHVC services, 45 did not) completed the survey. Eleven employees participated in follow-up focus groups or interviews. APHVC filled resource gaps, built capacity, and provided high-quality deliverables. LHDs experienced issues with reliability and communication of volunteers and lacked time to train volunteers. Conclusions: CFIR aided in evaluating APHVC in real time, producing actionable recommendations for best practices, dissemination, and future iterations of the program. Results are being used to enhance program effectiveness and sustainability, community health, and health equity across Massachusetts, and may help inform academic practice-based programs across the United States.

Development, Evaluation, and User Testing of a Decision-Making Toolkit to Promote Organizations to Implement Universal Tumor Screening for Lynch Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: The Implementing Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening (IMPULSS) study explained institutional variation in universal tumor screening (UTS) with the goal of identifying ways to aid organizational decision-makers in implementing and optimizing Lynch syndrome UTS programs. METHODS: After applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 1.0) to analyze interviews with 66 stakeholders across 9 healthcare systems to develop a toolkit for implementation, we adapted the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) to assess toolkit potential to aid decision-making consistent with organizational values. We then conducted user testing with two experienced and four non-experienced implementers of UTS to improve the content and functionality of the toolkit and assess its acceptability and appropriateness. RESULTS: Toolkit components were organized to address findings related to CFIR 1.0 constructs of evidence strength and quality, relative advantage, cost, engaging, planning, executing, and reflecting and evaluating. A home page was added to direct users to different sections based on whether they are deciding to implement UTS, planning for implementation, improving an existing UTS program, or considering a different approach to identify patients with Lynch syndrome. Upon initial evaluation, 31 of 64 IPDAS criteria were met by the original toolkit. All users rated the toolkit as acceptable and appropriate for assisting organizational decision-making and identified multiple areas for improvement. Numerous iterative changes were made to the toolkit, resulting in meeting 17 of the previously unmet IPDAS criteria. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the rigorous development of a toolkit guided by the CFIR and show how user testing helped improve the toolkit to ensure it is acceptable, appropriate, and meets most IPDAS criteria relevant to organizational values-based decision-making.

Pre-implementation planning for a sepsis intervention in a large learning health system: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis survivors experience high morbidity and mortality. Though recommended best practices have been established to address the transition and early post hospital needs and promote recovery for sepsis survivors, few patients receive recommended post-sepsis care. Our team developed the Sepsis Transition and Recovery (STAR) program, a multicomponent transition intervention that leverages virtually-connected nurses to coordinate the application of evidence-based recommendations for post-sepsis care with additional clinical support from hospitalist and primary care physicians. In this paper, we present findings from a qualitative pre-implementation study, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), of factors to inform successful STAR implementation at a large learning health system prior to effectiveness testing as part of a Type I Hybrid trial. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 16) with 8 administrative leaders and 8 clinicians. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed in ATLAS.ti using a combination deductive/inductive strategy based on CFIR domains and constructs and the Constant Comparison Method. RESULTS: Six facilitators and five implementation barriers were identified spanning all five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals and Process). Facilitators of STAR included alignment with health system goals, fostering stakeholder engagement, sharing STAR outcomes data, good communication between STAR navigators and patient care teams/PCPs, clinician promotion of STAR with patients, and good rapport and effective communication between STAR navigators and patients, caregivers, and family members. Barriers of STAR included competing demands for staff time and resources, insufficient communication and education of STAR's value and effectiveness, underlying informational and technology gaps among patients, lack of patient access to community resources, and patient distrust of the program and/or health care. CONCLUSIONS: CFIR proved to be a robust framework for examining facilitators and barriers for pre-implementation planning of post-sepsis care programs within diverse hospital and community settings in a large LHS. Conducting a structured pre-implementation evaluation helps researchers design with implementation in mind prior to effectiveness studies and should be considered a key component of Type I hybrid trials when feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04495946 . Registered August 3, 2020.

Facilitators and barriers to monitoring and evaluation at syringe service programs.

BACKGROUND: Syringe services programs (SSPs) provide harm reduction supplies and services to people who use drugs and are often required by funders or partners to collect data from program participants. SSPs can use these data during monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to inform programmatic decision making, however little is known about facilitators and barriers to collecting and using data at SSPs. METHODS: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted 12 key informant interviews with SSP staff to describe the overall landscape of data systems at SSPs, understand facilitators and barriers to data collection and use at SSPs, and generate recommendations for best practices for data collection at SSPs. We used 30 CFIR constructs to develop individual interview guides, guide data analysis, and interpret study findings. RESULTS: Four main themes emerged from our analysis: SSP M&E systems are primarily designed to be responsive to perceived SSP client needs and preferences; SSP staffing capacity influences the likelihood of modifying M&E systems; external funding frequently forces changes to M&E systems; and strong M&E systems are often a necessary precursor for accessing funding. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight that SSPs are not resistant to data collection and M&E, but face substantial barriers to implementation, including lack of funding and disjointed data reporting requirements. There is a need to expand M&E-focused funding opportunities, harmonize quantitative indicators collected across funders, and minimize data collection to essential data points for SSPs.

[Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of health promotion in daycare centers and elementary schools based on four selected projects]. / Gelingens- und Hindernisfaktoren bei der Implementierung von Gesundheitsförderung in Kitas und Grundschulen anhand von 4 ausgewählten Projekten.

BACKGROUND: Health promotion (HP) is a complex, politically required task. The quality of implementation correlates with the effectiveness of health promotion initiatives. Successful implementation requires consideration of contextual conditions, which tend to be neglected in effectiveness studies. The aim is to identify success factors and obstacles to the implementation of HP in daycare centers and elementary schools based on 4 projects (Fit fürs Leben, fit für pisa +, Buchprojekt Sonnige Traurigtage, and The Daily Mile) in the Göttingen/South Lower Saxony region. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are assumed to be relevant for the implementation of these projects. METHODS: In 24 semi-structured interviews and 2 focus group discussions between August 2021 and March 2022, practitioners were asked about the implementation of the four projects in their areas of activity. After transcription, the interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research supported the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 22 groups of factors were identified, on the basis of which 22 recommendations for action for GF implementation were formulated. Success factors at the individual and intervention level were at the forefront. The COVID-19 pandemic had a positive impact on the importance of HP, even though its feasibility was hampered. DISCUSSION: Numerous findings on the implementation of HP in children's living environments were confirmed by the study. The high significance of the individual factors is striking, which could be due to the survey of interviewees being familiar with the projects. The study results contribute to the further development of implementation strategies in HP.

Barriers and facilitators when implementing midwifery continuity of carer: a narrative analysis of the international literature.

BACKGROUND: Midwifery continuity of carer (MCoC) is a model of care in which the same midwife or small team of midwives supports women throughout pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period. The model has been prioritised by policy makers in a number of high-income countries, but widespread implementation and sustainability has proved challenging. METHODS: In this narrative review and synthesis of the global literature on the implementation and sustainability of midwifery continuity of carer, we identify barriers to, and facilitators of, this model of delivering maternity care. By mapping existing research evidence onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we identify factors for organisations to consider when planning and implementing midwifery continuity of carer as well as gaps in the current research evidence. RESULTS: Analysing international evidence using the CFIR shows that evidence around midwifery continuity of carer implementation is patchy and fragmented, and that the impetus for change is not critically examined. Existing literature pays insufficient attention to core aspects of the innovation such as the centrality of on call working arrangements and alignment with the professional values of midwifery. There is also limited attention to the political and structural contexts into which midwifery continuity of carer is introduced. CONCLUSIONS: By synthesizing international research evidence with the CFIR, we identify factors for organisations to consider when planning and implementing midwifery continuity of carer. We also call for more systematic and contextual evidence to aid understanding of the implementation or non-implementation of midwifery continuity of carer. Existing evidence should be critically evaluated and used more cautiously in support of claims about the model of care and its implementation, especially when implementation is occurring in different settings and contexts to the research being cited.

Strategies for scaling up pre-ART advanced HIV disease screening at a secondary referral hospital-Malawi: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended Advanced HIV Disease screening package, remains poor in most settings with limited resources. More than 50% of newly diagnosed-HIV clients are missed on screening as a result of implementation barriers. It is important to mitigate the existing barriers and leverage enablers' inorder to maximize uptake of the advanced HIV disease screening. This study aimed to identify strategies for scaling up implementation of advanced HIV disease screening among newly HIV-diagnosed clients in pre-ART phase using a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (CFIR-ERIC) guiding tool. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted at Rumphi district hospital in Malawi (August - September, 2023). Two sessions of Focus group discussions (FDGs) involving key stakeholders were facilitated to identify specific strategies following the initial study on exploration of barriers and facilitators of advanced HIV disease screening package. Participants comprised healthcare providers, purposively selected from key hospital departments. A deductive approach was used to analyze FDG transcripts where emerging themes were mapped with ERIC list of strategies. CFIR-ERIC Matching tool version 1.0, was used to generate an output of the most to least expert-endorsed Level 1 and Level 2 strategies. FINDINGS: About 25 key healthcare workers participated in FDGs. Overall, 6 Level 1 strategies (≥ 50% expert endorsement score) and 4 Level 2 strategies (≥ 20%, ≤ 49% expert endorsement score) were identified, targeting barriers associated with availability of resources, intervention complexity, access to knowledge and information, communication; and implementation leads. Most of the reported strategies were cross-cutting and aimed at enhancing clinical knowledge of the intervention (distributing training materials, educational meetings), developing stakeholders' interrelations (network weaving) as well as improving clinical workflow (environmental restructuring). Use of evaluative and iterative strategies such as monthly data collection for evaluation were also recommended as part of continuous improvement while an AHD coordinator was recommended to be formally appointed inorder to spearhead coordination of AHD screening services. CONCLUSION: Through the involvement of key stakeholders and the use of CFIR-ERIC matching tool, this study has identified cross-cutting strategies that if well implemented, can help to mitigate contextual barriers and leverage enablers for an improved delivery of AHD screening package.

Barriers to and facilitators of implementing colorectal cancer screening evidence-based interventions in federally qualified health centers: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) uptake in Texas federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), which serve a predominantly vulnerable population with high demands. Empirical support exists for evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that are proven to increase CRCS; however, as with screening, their use remains low in FQHCs. This study aimed to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: We recruited employees involved in implementing CRCS EBIs (e.g., physicians) using data from a CDC-funded program to increase the CRCS in Texas FQHCs. Through 23 group interviews, we explored experiences with practice change, CRCS promotion and quality improvement initiatives, organizational readiness, the impact of COVID-19, and the use of CRCS EBIs (e.g., provider reminders). We used directed content analysis with CFIR constructs to identify the critical facilitators and barriers. RESULTS: The analysis revealed six primary CFIR constructs that influence implementation: information technology infrastructure, innovation design, work infrastructure, performance measurement pressure, assessing needs, and available resources. Based on experiences with four recommended EBIs, participants described barriers, including data limitations of electronic health records and the design of reminder alerts targeted at deliverers and recipients of patient or provider reminders. Implementation facilitators include incentivized processes to increase provider assessment and feedback, existing clinic processes (e.g., screening referrals), and available resources to address patient needs (e.g., transportation). Staff buy-in emerged as an implementation facilitator, fostering a conducive environment for change within clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Using CFIR, we identified barriers, such as the burden of technology infrastructure, and facilitators, such as staff buy-in. The results, which enhance our understanding of CRCS EBI implementation in FQHCs, provide insights into designing nuanced, practical implementation strategies to improve cancer control in a critical setting.

Implementing evidence-based practices in rural settings: a scoping review of theories, models, and frameworks.

Background: Rural healthcare has unique characteristics that affect the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions. Numerous theories, models, and frameworks have been developed to guide implementation of healthcare interventions, though not specific to rural healthcare. The present scoping review sought to identify the theories, models, and frameworks most frequently applied to rural health and propose an approach to rural health research that harnesses selected constructs from these theories, models, and frameworks. This resulting synthesis can serve as a guide to researchers, policy makers, and clinicians seeking to employ commonly used theories, models, and frameworks to rural health. Methods: We used the Scopus abstract indexing service to identify peer-reviewed literature citing one or more of theories, models, or frameworks used in dissemination and implementation research and including the word "rural" in the Title, Abstract, or Keywords. We screened the remaining titles and abstracts to ensure articles met additional inclusion criteria. We conducted a full review of the resulting 172 articles to ensure they identified one or more discrete theory, model, or framework applied to research or quality improvement projects. We extracted the theories, models, and frameworks and categorized these as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, or evaluation frameworks. Results: We retained 61 articles of which 28 used RE-AIM, 11 used Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework, eight used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and six used the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS). Additional theories, models, and frameworks were cited in three or fewer reports in the literature. The 14 theories, models, and frameworks cited in the literature were categorized as seven process models, four determinant frameworks, one evaluation framework, and one classic theory. Conclusions: The RE-AIM framework was the most frequently cited framework in the rural health literature, followed by CBPR, CFIR, and iPARIHS. A notable advantage of RE-AIM in rural healthcare settings is the focus on reach as a specified outcome, given the challenges of engaging a geographically diffuse and often isolated population. We present a rationale for combining the strengths of these theories, models, and frameworks to guide a research agenda specific to rural healthcare research. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/fn2cd/.

From theory to practice in implementation science: qualitative insights from the implementation model developed by a commercial eMental Health provider.

BACKGROUND: Although eMental health interventions are a viable solution to address disparities in access to mental healthcare and increase its efficiency, they still face challenges of implementation. Literature highlights numerous barriers such as diffusion of responsibility and unclear expectations of what implementation entails might hinder this process. While research mostly focuses on analyzing these barriers, there is an urgent need to increase uptake in practice. In turn, commercial companies focus mostly on increasing uptake, while overlooking research outputs. To bridge the gap between research and practice, attention to how implementation occurs in practice is required. This study investigates "Make it Happen" (MiH), the implementation model developed by the eMental Health company Minddistrict, aiming to gain more insight into operationalizing implementation frameworks by 1) describing MiH and its conceptual underpinnings, and 2) gaining lessons learned from the development of MiH. Ultimately, this work aims at improving existing scientific frameworks by extending them with knowledge from practice. METHODS: First, individual interviews and focus groups with Minddistrict implementation managers were performed. Second, individual interviews with project leads in mental healthcare organizations that were involved in the implementation of Minddistrict were conducted. Within Minddistrict, 7 implementation managers and account managers were involved, in addition to 11 project leads from mental healthcare organizations. Data were elaborated with thematic analysis. RESULTS: A comprehensive description of MiH and its 5 main phases was achieved. During the 1) Onboarding phase, implementing organizations are guided by Minddistrict to build a team responsible for implementation, which then 2) designs patient and client journeys, 3) builds, tailors and configures their offer, 4) trains key-users and, 5) evaluates the success of implementation. All participants had extensive and aligned definitions and articulated expectations on implementation. Points of improvement for the model such as role ambiguity and excessive workload were identified. As strengths, internal motivation and good relationships with the provider were valued. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights the importance of clear role division and stakeholder engagement in implementation processes, and suggest that a strong collaboration between companies and academia could optimize implementation efforts and ensure a better fit between humans, context, and technologies.

Identifying factors and causal chains associated with optimal implementation of Lynch syndrome tumor screening: An application of coincidence analysis.

PURPOSE: This study compared Lynch syndrome universal tumor screening (UTS) across multiple health systems (some of which had 2 or more distinct UTS programs) to understand multilevel factors that may affect the successful implementation of complex programs. METHODS: Data from 66 stakeholder interviews were used to conduct multivalue coincidence analysis and identify key factors that consistently make a difference in whether UTS programs were implemented and optimized at the system level. RESULTS: The selected coincidence analysis model revealed combinations of conditions that distinguish 4 optimized UTS programs, 10 nonoptimized programs, and 4 systems with no program. Fully optimized UTS programs had both a maintenance champion and a positive inner setting. Two independent paths were unique to nonoptimized programs: (1) positive attitudes and a mixed inner setting or (2) limited planning and engaging among stakeholders. Negative views about UTS evidence or lack of knowledge about UTS led to a lack of planning and engaging, which subsequently prevented program implementation. CONCLUSION: The model improved our understanding of program implementation in health care systems and informed the creation of a toolkit to guide UTS implementation, optimization, and changes. Our findings and toolkit may serve as a use case to increase the successful implementation of other complex precision health programs.

Barriers and facilitators of improved nutritional support for patients newly diagnosed with cancer: a pre-implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Disease-related malnutrition affects a significant number of patients with cancer and poses a major social problem worldwide. Despite both global and national guidelines to prevent and treat malnutrition, the prevalence is high, ranging from 20 to 70% in all patients with cancer. This study aimed to explore the current practice of nutritional support for patients with cancer at a large university hospital in Norway and to explore potential barriers and facilitators of the intervention in the Green Approach to Improved Nutritional support for patients with cancer (GAIN), prior to implementation in a clinical setting. METHODS: The study used individual interviews and a focus group discussion to collect data. Study participants included different healthcare professionals and patients with cancer treated at a nutrition outpatient clinic. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide the thematic data analysis. RESULTS: Barriers connected to the current nutritional support were limited resources and undefined roles concerning responsibility for providing nutritional support among healthcare professionals. Facilitators included a desire for change regarding the current nutritional practice. The GAIN intervention was perceived as feasible for patients and healthcare professionals. Potential barriers included limited knowledge of technology, lack of motivation among patients, and a potential added burden experienced by the participating patients. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of the potential barriers and facilitators of the current nutritional support to patients with cancer will be used to plan the implementation of improved nutritional support in a randomized controlled trial for patients with cancer prior to clinical implementation. The current findings may be of value to others trying to implement either or both nutritional support and digital application tools in a clinical healthcare setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the National Institutes of Health Clinical trials 08/09/22. The identification code is NCT05544318.

Overcoming Barriers: Strategies for Implementing Pharmacist-Led Pharmacogenetic Services in Swiss Clinical Practice.

There is growing evidence that pharmacogenetic analysis can improve drug therapy for individual patients. In Switzerland, pharmacists are legally authorized to initiate pharmacogenetic tests. However, pharmacogenetic tests are rarely conducted in Swiss pharmacies. Therefore, we aimed to identify implementation strategies that facilitate the integration of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service into clinical practice. To achieve this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with pharmacists and physicians regarding the implementation process of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service. We utilized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify potential facilitators and barriers in the implementation process. Additionally, we employed Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to identify strategies mentioned in the interviews and used the CFIR-ERIC matching tool to identify additional strategies. We obtained interview responses from nine pharmacists and nine physicians. From these responses, we identified 7 CFIR constructs as facilitators and 12 as barriers. Some of the most commonly mentioned barriers included unclear procedures, lack of cost coverage by health care insurance, insufficient pharmacogenetics knowledge, lack of interprofessional collaboration, communication with the patient, and inadequate e-health technologies. Additionally, we identified 23 implementation strategies mentioned by interviewees using ERIC and 45 potential strategies using the CFIR-ERIC matching tool. In summary, we found that significant barriers hinder the implementation process of this new service. We hope that by highlighting potential implementation strategies, we can advance the integration of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service in Switzerland.

Multilevel perspectives on the implementation of the collaborative care model for depression and anxiety in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) is an evidence-based mental health treatment in primary care. A greater understanding of the determinants of successful CoCM implementation, particularly the characteristics of multi-level implementers, is needed. METHODS: This study was a process evaluation of the Collaborative Behavioral Health Program (CBHP) study (NCT04321876) in which CoCM was implemented in 11 primary care practices. CBHP implementation included screening for depression and anxiety, referral to CBHP, and treatment with behavioral care managers (BCMs). Interviews were conducted 4- and 15-months post-implementation with BCMs, practice managers, and practice champions (primary care clinicians). We used framework-guided rapid qualitative analysis with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Version 2.0, focused on the Individuals domain, to analyze response data. These data represented the roles of Mid-Level Leaders (practice managers), Implementation Team Members (clinicians, support staff), Innovation Deliverers (BCMs), and Innovation Recipients (primary care/CBHP patients) and their characteristics (i.e., Need, Capability, Opportunity, Motivation). RESULTS: Mid-level leaders (practice managers) were enthusiastic about CBHP (Motivation), appreciated integrating mental health services into primary care (Need), and had time to assist clinicians (Opportunity). Although CBHP lessened the burden for implementation team members (clinicians, staff; Need), some were hesitant to reallocate patient care (Motivation). Innovation deliverers (BCMs) were eager to deliver CBHP (Motivation) and confident in assisting patients (Capability); their opportunity to deliver CBHP could be limited by clinician referrals (Opportunity). Although CBHP alleviated barriers for innovation recipients (patients; Need), it was difficult to secure services for those with severe conditions (Capability) and certain insurance types (Opportunity). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, respondents favored sustaining CoCM and highlighted the positive impacts on the practice, health care team, and patients. Participants emphasized the benefits of integrating mental health services into primary care and how CBHP lessened the burden on clinicians while providing patients with comprehensive care. Barriers to CBHP implementation included ensuring appropriate patient referrals, providing treatment for patients with higher-level needs, and incentivizing clinician engagement. Future CoCM implementation should include strategies focused on education and training, encouraging clinician buy-in, and preparing referral paths for patients with more severe conditions or diverse needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT04321876). Registered: March 25,2020. Retrospectively registered.