Background
Methods
Stage 1: development of the ImpRes tool (July 2015–May 2016)
1a. Expert brainstorming and consensus-building sessions (July 2015–December 2015)
1b. Identification of key methodological/conceptual literature containing guidance and recommendations for designing and evaluating implementation research (July 2015–March 2018)
1c. Additional specialist input into specific ImpRes domains (January 2016–March 2016)
1d. Pilot testing and refinement (December 2015–May 2016)
Stage 2: application of the ImpRes tool (June 2016–August 2018)
Stage 3: Evaluation of the ImpRes tool (June 2016–August 2018)
3a: Questionnaire (June 2016-August 2018)
3b: Download figures (April 2018-September 2018)
Stage 4: development of the ImpRes supplementary guide (January 2017–April 2018)
Results
Overview of the ImpRes tool
Stage 1: development of the ImpRes tool
1a: Expert consensus-building brainstorming sessions
ImpRes domain | Rationale underpinning inclusion |
---|---|
Domain 1: Implementation research characteristics | It has been argued that the research-to-practice gap is inflated by the tendency to conduct research in a step-wise manner from clinical efficacy research, followed by clinical effectiveness research, and lastly implementation research [18‐21]. The benefits of simultaneously researching effectiveness and implementation to promote the more rapid and successful translation of clinical interventions have been previously described and a hybrid effectiveness-implementation typology proposed [22]. As such, the ImpRes tool encourages researchers to differentiate between studying the effectiveness of an evidence-based intervention (e.g. to improve a specific service or patient outcome) and studying the implementation of an intervention in a real-world setting (e.g. to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and evaluate implementation success and strategies). The ImpRes tool urges researchers to categorize the degree of focus placed on evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention and/or implementation success (e.g. from effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies to pure implementation research [22]). The ImpRes tool and guide are not intended to be overly prescriptive in terms of implementation study design; different designs lend themselves to different project aims and objectives, as such there is not a one size fits all. |
Domain 2: Implementation theories, frameworks and models | The use of implementation theories, frameworks and models is important in implementation research for multiple reasons including guiding implementation efforts, improving understanding of implementation determinants and providing a structure to synthesize findings [9]. Furthermore, the use of theories and frameworks enhances the generalizability of implementation efforts and help to build a cumulative understanding of the nature of change [23] enabling greater replication of evidence-based interventions in other settings. The underuse, superficial use and misuse of theories and frameworks have been described as posing a substantial scientific challenge for implementation science [9]. ImpRes does not endorse the use of any particular theory, framework or model as the aims and objectives of any given implementation research project will determine the appropriateness and relevance of particular implementation theories, frameworks and models. Depending on the aims and objectives of an implementation research project, it may be appropriate to apply more than one theory, framework or model. For example, if a project aims to identify and understand barriers and enablers to individual behavior change and simultaneously evaluate implementation efforts, the application of a determinant framework which focuses on individual level determinants, such as the theoretical domains framework (TDF) [24], as well as a framework, such as RE-AIM [25], that can be used to evaluate implementation efforts, would be appropriate. As such, the ImpRes tool encourages researchers to consider and apply implementation theories, frameworks or models in implementation research that are appropriate to the aims and objectives of the research. |
Domain 3: Determinants of implementation | Implementation success is, in part, a function of the context in which implementation efforts occur. Without a clear understanding of the contextual factors likely to impede or facilitate implementation efforts, implementation strategies to overcome barriers and maximize facilitators will not be optimized, thereby reducing the likelihood of implementation success. The ImpRes tool specifically highlights the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) [26], because CFIR brings together key constructs, derived from multiple implementation theories, that influence implementation efforts and is one of the most highly cited implementation determinant frameworks in the field [27]. Whilst the ImpRes tool highlights CFIR, it is important to note that ImpRes does not endorse the use of a particular determinant framework. Rather than simply describing the context in which implementation efforts occur, the ImpRes tool prompts research teams to design research to prospectively and systematically explore the factors that are likely to hinder or facilitate implementation efforts—including identification of factors commonly present across contexts that impede or facilitate health intervention implementation. Recent efforts to improve our understanding of implementation in given contexts have provided a more comprehensive, unified and structured conceptualization of context, extending beyond simply barriers and facilitators to implementation [28‐30]. |
Domain 4: Implementation strategies | Described as constituting the ‘active ingredient’ and ‘how to’ components of implementation efforts, implementation strategies are regarded as having unparalleled importance in implementation science [31]. A program of research is currently underway to improve guidance regarding how best to select implementation strategies [8, 32, 33]. The ImpRes tool and guide aim to advise research teams to prospectively appraise the context in which they intend to implement evidence-based interventions and subsequently select contextually appropriate implementation strategies to maximize implementation success. The ImpRes tool and guide thus aim to facilitate explicit mapping of implementation strategies to prospectively identified barriers and facilitators to implementation efforts by signposting researchers to resources and tools designed to help researchers achieve this. |
Domain 5: Service and patient outcomes | Researchers working in the field of applied health research will be familiar with, and understand the importance of, identifying, assessing and measuring relevant service and patient outcomes (commonly referred to as ‘client outcomes’ in the USA) to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions. Unless conducting ‘pure’ implementation research [22], implementation outcomes [34], will be evaluated in addition to service and patient outcomes. The ImpRes tool and guide aim to highlight the limitations of only assessing service and patient outcomes when trying to understand and evaluate implementation. By making explicit the different types of outcomes an implementation study can assess, the ImpRes tool and guide facilitate the thinking that patient and service level outcomes are conceptually distinct from implementation outcomes—thus the need to assess the latter becomes prominent. In doing so, the ImpRes tool and guide aim to increase awareness that whilst the assessment and measurement of service and patient outcomes are essential to determine the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of an intervention, they are not sufficient for understanding implementation success, or failure of an intervention. For example, an intervention designed to reduce Emergency Department admissions might be found to be ineffective according to admission data (i.e. service outcomes). However, the intervention might subsequently be found to be effective, for example, when implemented as intended (i.e. implemented with fidelity). |
Domain 6: Implementation outcomes | Implementation outcomes have been defined as ‘the effects of deliberate and purposive actions to implement new treatments, practices and services and are distinct from service and client (patient) outcomes.’ [34]. They may focus on a specific level of implementation, such as system, organization, innovation, provider and patient. Proctor et al. proposed a working taxonomy of eight implementation outcomes that may be assessed across all levels of a healthcare system, these include acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, fidelity, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability [34]. Implementation outcomes may be assessed using validated measurement instruments, routinely collected data and qualitative methods. They should be assessed at salient stages of implementation (e.g. early for adoption, ongoing for penetration, late for sustainability). Furthermore, implementation strategies should be appropriately aligned to the implementation outcome(s) they intended to target and improve. |
Domain 7: Economic evaluation | Implementation actions and strategies will inevitably consume scarce resources that could be put to other valued uses. Decision makers are therefore likely to want to gain insight into which options offer the greatest returns, in terms of patient or population health-related benefits, per $ of resource invested [35]. Economic evaluation provides a methodological framework for examining this question, and for adding further insight into the inter-dependencies between activities, cost, implementation outcomes and patient outcomes [36]. While the concept and importance of costing and consideration to cost-effectiveness in relation to implementation strategies is not particularly novel, to the best of our knowledge, the ImpRes tool and guide is the only implementation research tool of its type to provide guidance on data requirements for costing implementation strategies and how economic evaluation more generally should fit into a broader implementation evaluation plan. |
Domain 8: Stakeholder involvement and engagement | The ImpRes tool explicitly urges researchers to view implementation research as a genuinely collaborative undertaking between researchers and stakeholders and therefore stresses the importance of involving and engaging stakeholders in the process of designing implementation research. Stakeholders are individuals and groups who are likely to be impacted or affected by implementation efforts; they may also be influential in determining the success or failure of implementation efforts (e.g. health service leaders or managers or commissioners). Involving and engaging stakeholders as part of the study design team helps to ensure that, for example, suitable implementation strategies and outcomes (both patient, service and implementation outcomes) are measured; and that an appropriate communication and dissemination plan are developed. |
Domain 9: Patient and public involvement and engagement | Patient and public involvement (PPI) is widely considered a marker of high-quality research [37]. Evidence suggests that PPI in implementation research is lagging and has not matured to the same extent as PPI in other areas of health research and as such remains a largely untapped resource [38, 39]. The ImpRes tool prompts research teams to distinguish and consider PPI in isolation to other stakeholder involvement because of its critical importance in facilitating the implementation of research evidence into clinical practice and thus maximizing patient benefit and reducing health inequalities. As such, research teams are encouraged to view implementation research as a partnership between researchers and patients and thus involve patients and the public in designing implementation research. |
Domain 10: Unintended consequences | Implementation efforts are often complex, challenging, and unpredictable. Unintended consequences (both positive and negative) are likely to occur as a result of implementation efforts; however, unintended consequences of implementation efforts are often not studied and/or under-reported. Research teams often focus their efforts on quantifying the intended and anticipated benefits of implementation efforts and fail to consider unintended and unanticipated consequences. The ImpRes tool prompts research teams to be mindful of and explore the potential unintended consequences of implementation efforts. |
1b: Identification of key methodological/conceptual literature containing implementation research design guidance and recommendations
ImpRes domain | Key methodological/conceptual articles, reports and resources (peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed) providing research design guidance and recommendations |
---|---|
Domain 1: Implementation research characteristics | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
• Brown et al. An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation. Annu Rev. Public Health. 2017;38:1–22 [40]. | |
• Curran et al. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–26 [22]. | |
Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
• National Implementation Research Network. Stages of Implementation. http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation/implementation-stages [41]. | |
Domain 2: Implementation theories, frameworks and models | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
• Birken et al. Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):124 [9]. | |
• Eccles et al. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(2):107–12 [42]. | |
• Nilsen. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53 [43]. | |
• Tabak et al. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–50 [44]. | |
Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
• Implementation Science Exchange. https://impsci.tracs.unc.edu [17]. | |
• The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) website. www.cfirguide.org [45]. | |
• Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework website. http://re-aim.org [46]. • Normalisation Process Theory. http://www.normalizationprocess.org/. Accessed 12 May 2019. [47]. | |
Domain 3: Determinants of implementation | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
• Chaudoir et al. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22 [48]. | |
• Craig et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655 [49]. | |
• Damschroder et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50 [26]. | |
• Flottorp et al. A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci. 2013;23;8:35 [50]. | |
• Nilsen. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53 [43]. | |
Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
• Health Foundation webinar: Quality Improvement and the role of context and how to manage it. www.health.org.uk/webinar-quality-improvement-role-context-and-how-manage-it [51]. | |
• Health Foundation. Perspectives on Context: A selection of essays considering the role of context in successful quality improvement. https://www.health.org.uk/sites/health/files/PerspectivesOnContext_fullversion.pdf [52]. | |
• The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) website. www.cfirguide.org [45]. | |
Domain 4: Implementation strategies | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
• Powell et al. Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(2):177–194 [53]. | |
• Proctor et al. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139 [31]. | |
• Waltz et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships amongst implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:109 [33]. | |
Domain 5: Service and patient outcomes | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
• Proctor et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. [34] | |
Domain 6: Implementation outcomes | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
• Clinton-McHarg et al. Psychometric properties of implementation measures for public health and community settings and mapping of constructs against the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:148 [54]. | |
• Lewis et al. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci. 2015;10:155 [55]. | |
• Proctor et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76 [34]. | |
Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
• The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) Implementation Outcomes Repository website. https://societyforimplementationresearchcollaboration.org/ [56]. | |
• Grid-Enable Measures (GEM) database website. https://www.gem-beta.org/Public/Home.aspx [57]. | |
• National Institute for Health National Cancer Institute. Advanced Topics for Implementation Science Research: Measure Development and Evaluation webinar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXVhRQXiz4 [58]. | |
Domain 7: Economic evaluation | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
• Thompson et al. The cost-effectiveness of quality improvement projects: a conceptual framework, checklist and online tool for considering the costs and consequences of implementation-based quality improvement. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22(1):26–30 [35]. | |
• Mason et al. When is it cost-effective to change the behavior of health professionals? JAMA. 2001;286(23):2988–92 [59]. | |
Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
• Blog: Theory and practice: Finding common ground between health economics and implementation science. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-health/2014/12/18/theory-and-practice-finding-common-ground-between-health-economics-and-implementation-science/[60]. | |
• Checklist and Online Resource (PCEERT) for Considering the Value of Implementation-Based Quality Improvement [35]. | |
Domain 8: Stakeholder involvement and engagement | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
• Rycroft-Malone et al. Collaborative action around implementation in collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care: Towards a programme theory. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 18(3 Suppl):13–26 [38]. | |
Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
• Blog: Where are the stakeholders in implementation science? http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/where-are-stakeholders-implementation-science [61]. | |
Domain 9: Patient and public involvement and engagement | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
• Burton et al. An Untapped Resource: Patient and Public Involvement in Implementation Comment on “Knowledge Mobilization in Healthcare Organizations: A View from the Resource-Based View of the Firm”. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(12):845–7 [39]. | |
• Callard et al. Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research. Health Expect. 2012;15(4):389–400 [62]. | |
• Ocloo J et al. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(8):626–32 [63]. | |
Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
• National Institute for Health (NIHR) Report: Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health wellbeing through public involvement in research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/patients-and-public/documents/Going-the-Extra-Mile.pdf [64]. | |
• National Institute for Health (NIHR) INVOLVE website. http://www.invo.org.uk/ [65]. | |
• Hayes H et al. National Institute for Health (NIHR) INVOLVE Briefing notes for researchers: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. http://www.invo.org.uk/resource-centre/resource-for-researchers/ [66]. | |
• National Institute for Health (NIHR) INVOLVE Jargon Buster. http://www.invo.org.uk/resource-centre/jargon-buster/ [67]. | |
Domain 10: Unintended consequences | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
• Merton R. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. Am Sociol Rev. 1936;1:894e904 [68]. | |
Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
• The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). Online module: Introduction to Unintended Consequences. https://www.healthit.gov/unintended-consequences/content/module-i-introduction-unintended-consequences.html [69]. |
1c: Additional specialist input into specific ImpRes domains
1d: Pilot testing and refinement
Stage 2: application of the ImpRes tool
Project title and CLAHRC South London Research theme Project web page (if available) | Healthcare area | Research stage at which the ImpRes tool was applied (prospective or retrospective) | Study field and design of studya | Position of researcher(s) completing the ImpRes tool and ImpRes application details |
---|---|---|---|---|
Prevention of Preterm Birth Plus Improving Women’s Experiences; Maternity and Women’s Health research theme | Maternity and women’s health | Prospective application | Implementation Science project; Hybrid type 2 | Midwife researchers Completed independently followed by face-to-face feedback session with three members of the research team. |
Developing, implementing and evaluating tobacco dependence treatment for people with psychosis and staff training pathways; Psychosis research theme No website available | Mental health | Retrospective application | Implementation Science project: Hybrid type 3 | Senior post-doctoral researcher Completed independently. Feedback session offered but not accepted. |
Service Evaluation of Alcohol Identification and Brief Advice Direct to the Public; Alcohol theme, Health Innovation Network South Londonb | Alcohol | Retrospective application | Improvement/spread project: Hybrid type 3 | Senior Project Manager Completed independently, feedback session completed. |
Evaluation of the delivery of a clinical trial intervention to improve hypoglycemia control in type 1 diabetes: Applying an implementation science approach; Diabetes Research theme | Diabetes | Prospective application | Implementation Science project: Hybrid type 1 | Post-doctoral researcher Completed independently and feedback session completed. |
DeAR-GP dementia assessment referral to GP; Dementia theme, Health Innovation Network South Londonb Project website: https://healthinnovationnetwork.com/projects/dear-gp/ | Dementia | Prospective application | Improvement/spread project: Implementation Research | Senior Project Manager Completed independently and feedback session completed. |
Development of an atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter care pathway in the cardiac device clinic; King’s Improvement Science, Centre for Implementation Science. | Cardiac services | Retrospective application | Improvement Science project; Hybrid type 3 | Research worker Completed independently and feedback session completed. |
ICARUS Quality improvement project—implementing a safety briefing in critical care; King’s Improvement Science, Centre for Implementation Science. | Critical care | Retrospective application | Improvement Science project: Implementation Research | Health Service Researcher/Improvement Science specialist Completed independently and feedback session completed. |
iMobile—improving critical care discharge summaries; King’s Improvement Science, Centre for Implementation Science. | Critical care | Retrospective application | Improvement Science project; Implementation Research | Health Service Researcher/Improvement Science Specialist Completed independently. Feedback session not completed. |
Improving Lung Health in Addictions Services; King’s Improvement Science, part of the Centre for Implementation Science. | Drug and Alcohol Services | Retrospective application | Improvement Science project; Implementation Research | Research worker Completed independently and feedback session completed. |
Implementing optimal falls risk assessment in memory services; Dementia theme, Health Innovation Network South Londonb | Dementia | Prospective application | Improvement/spread project: Hybrid type 2 | Innovation Fellow Completed independently and feedback session completed. |
Technology Enabled Patient Consultation; Technology and Information theme; Health Innovation Network South Londonb Project website: No project website available | Technology and Information | Prospective application | Improvement/spread project; Hybrid type 2 | Technology Project Manager Completed independently and feedback session completed. |
Reducing Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTIs) in South London to improve patient safety, experience and value; Patient Safety theme, Health Innovation Network South Londonb Project website: https://healthinnovationnetwork.com/projects/catheter-care/ | Patient Safety | Prospective application | Improvement/spread project; Hybrid type 2 | Clinical Nurse Specialist Completed independently and feedback session completed. |
A Process Evaluation of the Implementation and Effectiveness of an Intensive Care Unit Telemedicine Programme; King’s Improvement Science, Centre for Implementation Science.
No project website available
| Intensive care | Prospective application | Improvement Science project;
Hybrid type 2
| Post-doctoral research fellow Completed independently and feedback session completed. |
Process evaluation of a violence reduction programme in inpatient psychiatric wards. King’s Improvement Science, Centre for Implementation Science. Project website: http://www.kingsimprovementscience.org/dina-poursanidou | Mental health | Retrospective application | Improvement Science project;
Implementation Research
| King’s Improvement Science Fellow Completed with lead researcher |
Walk this Way: a coaching intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in people with severe mental illness; Psychosis research theme | Mental health | Prospective application | Implementation Science project; Hybrid Type 1 | Post-doctoral researcher Completed independently and feedback session completed. |
Stage 3: evaluation of the ImpRes tool
3a. Questionnaire
Statements | Median (IQR) |
---|---|
Structure and content | |
The ImpRes tool is easy to understand | 4 (3–4) |
The ImpRes tool is time consuming to complete | 4 (3–4) |
The ImpRes tool is too long | 3 (2–4) |
The order of the questions is logical | 4 (4–4) |
The ImpRes tool covers the key components that should be considered when designing/conducting an implementation project | 4 (4–4) |
Usefulness | |
The ImpRes tool is a useful for self/project team reflection regarding implementation research | 5 (4–5) |
The ImpRes tool is useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking | 5 (4–5) |
ImpRes is a useful tool to strengthen implementation science in projects | 5 (4–5) |
Giving project teams feedback on their project based on the ImpRes tool would be useful for improving the quality of implementation research | 4 (4–5) |
ImpRes is a useful tool to audit the quality of implementation research | 4 (4–4) |
ImpRes is a useful tool in identifying projects that should be adopted by CLAHRC South Londona, N = 12b | 4 (3–5) |
Free text comments provided by researchers after completing the ImpRes tool
3b: Download figures
Stage 4: Development of the ImpRes supplementary guide
ImpRes guide features | Rationale for inclusion | Feature examples |
---|---|---|
Jargon buster | Implementation science has been described as a ‘tower of babel’ [70]. To address this issue, a ‘jargon buster’, providing widely accepted definitions of commonly used terms in implementation science is included in the ImpRes guide. It is hoped that this feature will further promote attempts, and the need, to bring consistency to terminology used in the field. | ImpRes domain: Implementation outcomes |
Implementation outcomes have been defined as ‘the effects of deliberate and purposive actions to implement new treatments, practices, and services and are distinct from service and client (patient) outcomes’ Proctor et al., 2011 [34]. | ||
ImpRes component: Implementation Strategies | ||
Implementation strategies are ‘methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of a clinical programme, practice or intervention’ Proctor et al., 2013 [31]. | ||
Top tips | Implementation science has been described as a growing but not well understood field of health research [71]. To help address this challenge, a ‘top tips’ feature exists to help researchers design high-quality implementation research. Whilst these ‘tips’ are embedded within the literature, it is hoped that the ‘top tips’ feature will ensure that existing design recommendations will be brought to the forefront of researchers’ minds when designing implementation research. | ImpRes domain: Implementation theories, framework and models |
Depending on the nature and aim(s) of your implementation research, it might be appropriate to use more than one theory, framework or model. For example, if your research aims to identify barriers to implementation as well as evaluating implementation, selecting an implementation determinant framework as well as an implementation evaluation framework would be appropriate. | ||
Keep an eye out | Implementation science is a rapidly advancing field with much work currently being conducted to address lack of design guidance. The ‘keep an eye out’ feature signposts researchers’ to research that is currently being conducted that is not yet completed/published. | ImpRes domain: Implementation strategies |
A team of implementation scientists are currently developing the Implementation Technique Selection tool to ‘guide the selection of individual strategies that can be bundled or packaged together into an overall implementation strategy’. For more information, click here: http://cfirguide.org/techniques.html [72] | ||
Useful references | Many peer-review publications exist that have the potential to increase knowledge and understanding and guide methodological decisions in implementation research. It is hoped this feature will signpost researchers to key peer-reviewed publications that can be used to guide the design of implementation research. | ImpRes domain: Implementation theories, framework and models |
Tabak et al. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43:337–350 [44]. | ||
Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Imp Sci. 2015;10:53 [43]. | ||
Useful resources | In addition to peer-reviewed publications, many online resources exist that have the potential to increase knowledge and understanding and facilitate the design of implementation research. The ‘useful resources’ feature signposts researchers to blogs, webinars and websites. | ImpRes domain: Implementation theories, frameworks and models |
Website: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) website (http://www.cfirguide.org/) [45]. | ||
ImpRes domain: Implementation outcomes | ||
Webinar: Advanced Topics for Implementation Science Research: Measure Development and Evaluation. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXVhRQXiz4) [58]. | ||
Link between ImpRes domains | Although presented separately, the ten ImpRes domains should be viewed as interlinked and overlapping rather than discrete. Here, we make these interlinks explicit. | ImpRes domains: Service and Patient Outcomes |
Stakeholder Involvement and Engagement: Selecting service and/or patient outcomes to assess and measure should be informed by involving stakeholders. Measuring and assessing outcomes important to stakeholders can have a significant impact on adoption, implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practice. |