58
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation Mapping: Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Implementation Strategies

      methods-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: The ultimate impact of a health innovation depends not only on its effectiveness but also on its reach in the population and the extent to which it is implemented with high levels of completeness and fidelity. Implementation science has emerged as the potential solution to the failure to translate evidence from research into effective practice and policy evident in many fields. Implementation scientists have developed many frameworks, theories and models, which describe implementation determinants, processes, or outcomes; yet, there is little guidance about how these can inform the development or selection of implementation strategies (methods or techniques used to improve adoption, implementation, sustainment, and scale-up of interventions) ( 1, 2). To move the implementation science field forward and to provide a practical tool to apply the knowledge in this field, we describe a systematic process for planning or selecting implementation strategies: Implementation Mapping.

          Methods: Implementation Mapping is based on Intervention Mapping (a six-step protocol that guides the design of multi-level health promotion interventions and implementation strategies) and expands on Intervention Mapping step 5. It includes insights from both the implementation science field and Intervention Mapping. Implementation Mapping involves five tasks: (1) conduct an implementation needs assessment and identify program adopters and implementers; (2) state adoption and implementation outcomes and performance objectives, identify determinants, and create matrices of change objectives; (3) choose theoretical methods (mechanisms of change) and select or design implementation strategies; (4) produce implementation protocols and materials; and (5) evaluate implementation outcomes. The tasks are iterative with the planner circling back to previous steps throughout this process to ensure all adopters and implementers, outcomes, determinants, and objectives are addressed.

          Discussion: Implementation Mapping provides a systematic process for developing strategies to improve the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of evidence-based interventions in real-world settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references81

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

          Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

            An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research.

              Purposeful sampling is widely used in qualitative research for the identification and selection of information-rich cases related to the phenomenon of interest. Although there are several different purposeful sampling strategies, criterion sampling appears to be used most commonly in implementation research. However, combining sampling strategies may be more appropriate to the aims of implementation research and more consistent with recent developments in quantitative methods. This paper reviews the principles and practice of purposeful sampling in implementation research, summarizes types and categories of purposeful sampling strategies and provides a set of recommendations for use of single strategy or multistage strategy designs, particularly for state implementation research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                18 June 2019
                2019
                : 7
                : 158
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health , Houston, TX, United States
                [2] 2Department of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht University , Maastricht, Netherlands
                [3] 3Department of Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [4] 4Department of Population and Data Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Dallas, TX, United States
                [5] 5Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, PA, United States
                [6] 6Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, PA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Mary Evelyn Northridge, New York University, United States

                Reviewed by: Miruna Petrescu-Prahova, University of Washington, United States; Sankalp Das, Baptist Health South Florida, United States

                *Correspondence: Maria E. Fernandez maria.e.fernandez@ 123456uth.tmc.edu

                This article was submitted to Public Health Education and Promotion, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2019.00158
                6592155
                31275915
                ed0db6b2-ffdd-4dda-acfc-9abbb791c666
                Copyright © 2019 Fernandez, ten Hoor, van Lieshout, Rodriguez, Beidas, Parcel, Ruiter, Markham and Kok.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 12 January 2019
                : 29 May 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 75, Pages: 15, Words: 12002
                Categories
                Public Health
                Methods

                implementation,dissemination,adoption,intervention mapping,adaptation,implementation strategies,mechanisms of change,health promotion

                Comments

                Comment on this article