Expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study

Implementation Science

JoAnn E Kirchner²  Laura J Damschroder⁴  Enola K Proctor³  Monica M Matthieu¹  Jeffrey L Smith⁷  Matthew J Chinman⁵  Byron J Powell⁸  Thomas J Waltz⁶ 

[1] School of Social Work, College for Public Health & Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri and St. Louis VA Health Care System, St. Louis, USA;Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA;Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA;HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA;RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA;Department of Psychology, 301D Science Complex, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, USA 48197;Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2200 Fort Roots Drive (152/NLR), Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, HSR&D and Mental Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Little Rock, Arkansas, USA;Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, d.b.a. Vandeventer Place Research Foundation, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

关键词: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;    Mixed methods;    Implementation strategies;    Implementation research;   

Others  :  819430
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-9-39

 received in 2014-02-11, accepted in 2014-03-19,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Identifying feasible and effective implementation strategies that are contextually appropriate is a challenge for researchers and implementers, exacerbated by the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding terms and definitions for implementation strategies, as well as a literature that provides imperfect guidance regarding how one might select strategies for a given healthcare quality improvement effort. In this study, we will engage an Expert Panel comprising implementation scientists and mental health clinical managers to: establish consensus on a common nomenclature for implementation strategy terms, definitions and categories; and develop recommendations to enhance the match between implementation strategies selected to facilitate the use of evidence-based programs and the context of certain service settings, in this case the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health services.

Methods/Design

This study will use purposive sampling to recruit an Expert Panel comprising implementation science experts and VA mental health clinical managers. A novel, four-stage sequential mixed methods design will be employed. During Stage 1, the Expert Panel will participate in a modified Delphi process in which a published taxonomy of implementation strategies will be used to establish consensus on terms and definitions for implementation strategies. In Stage 2, the panelists will complete a concept mapping task, which will yield conceptually distinct categories of implementation strategies as well as ratings of the feasibility and effectiveness of each strategy. Utilizing the common nomenclature developed in Stages 1 and 2, panelists will complete an innovative menu-based choice task in Stage 3 that involves matching implementation strategies to hypothetical implementation scenarios with varying contexts. This allows for quantitative characterizations of the relative necessity of each implementation strategy for a given scenario. In Stage 4, a live web-based facilitated expert recommendation process will be employed to establish expert recommendations about which implementations strategies are essential for each phase of implementation in each scenario.

Discussion

Using a novel method of selecting implementation strategies for use within specific contexts, this study contributes to our understanding of implementation science and practice by sharpening conceptual distinctions among a comprehensive collection of implementation strategies.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Waltz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Eccles MP, Mittman BS: Welcome to Implementation Science. Implement Sci 2006, 1:1-3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Flottorp SA, Oxman AD, Krause J, Musila NR, Wensing M, Godycki-Cwirko M, Baker R, Eccles MP: 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, 8:1-11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Department of Veterans Affairs: Uniform Mental Health Services in VA Medical Centers and Clinics. Washington, D.C: Department of Veterans Affairs; 2008:1-43.
• [4]Stetler CB, Mittman BS, Francis J: Overview of the VA quality enhancement research initiative (QUERI) and QUERI theme articles: QUERI series. Implement Sci 2008, 3:8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, Haynes RB, Straus S: A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: A Tower of Babel? Implement Sci 2010, 5:1-11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Michie S, Fixsen DL, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP: Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implement Sci 2009, 4:1-6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Joshu-Haire D, Kreuter MW, Weaver NL: A glossary of dissemination and implementation research in health. J Public Health Manag 2008, 14:117-123.
• [8]Rabin BA, Brownson RC: Developing terminology for dissemination and implementation research. In Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. Edited by Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012:23-51.
• [9]Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, Glass JE, York JL: A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Med Care Res Rev 2012, 69:123-157.
• [10]Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC: Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci 2013, 8:1-11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Gerring J: Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
• [12]Kauth MR, Sullivan G, Cully J, Blevins D: Facilitating practice changes in mental health clinics: A guide for implementation development in health care systems. Psychol Serv 2011, 8:36-47.
• [13]Brouwers MC, De Vito C, Bahirathan L, Carol A, Carroll JC, Cotterchio M, Dobbins M, Lent B, Levitt C, Lewis N, McGregor SE, Paszat L, Rand C, Wathen N: What implementation efforts increase cancer screening rates? A systematic review. Implement Sci 2011, 6:1-17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group: EPOC Taxonomy of professional and organisational interventions. 2002. in [http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-author-resources webcite]
• [15]Mazza D, Bairstow P, Buchan H, Chakraborty SP, Van Hecke O, Grech C, Kunnamo I: Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: Results of an exercise in abstract classification. Implement Sci 2013, 8:1-10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles MP, Cane J, Wood CE: The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med 2013, 46:81-95.
• [17]WIDER recommendations to improve reporting of the content of behaviour change interventions [http://interventiondesign.co.uk/ webcite]
• [18]Albrecht L, Archibald M, Arseneau D, Scott SD: Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations. Implement Sci 2013, 8:1-5. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE: Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012, 7:1-17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group [http://epoc.cochrane.org webcite]
• [21]Landsverk J, Brown CH, Rolls Reutz J, Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM: Design elements in implementation research: A structured review of child welfare and child mental health studies. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 2011, 38:54-63.
• [22]Goldner EM, Jeffries V, Bilsker D, Jenkins E, Menear M, Petermann L: Knowledge translation in mental health: A scoping review. Healthcare Policy 2011, 7:83-98.
• [23]Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE: A systematic review of strategies for implementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Res Soc Work Pract 2014, 24:192-212.
• [24]Novins DK, Green AE, Legha RK, Aarons GA: Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices for child and adolescent mental health: A systematic review. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2013, 52:1009-1025. e18
• [25]Herschell AD, Kolko DJ, Baumann BL, Davis AC: The role of therapist training in the implementation of psychosocial treatments: A review and critique with recommendations. Clin Psychol Rev 2010, 30:448-466.
• [26]McHugh RK, Barlow DH: Training in evidence-based psychological interventions. In Dissemination and Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychological Interventions. Edited by McHugh RK, Barlow DH. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012:43-58.
• [27]Vale L, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Grimshaw J: Systematic review of economic evaluations and cost analyses of guideline implementation strategies. Eur J Health Econ 2007, 8:111-121.
• [28]Raghavan R: The role of economic evaluation in dissemination and implementation research. In Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. Edited by Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012:94-113.
• [29]Fogliatto FS, da Silveira GJC, Borenstein D: The mass customization decade: An updated review of the literature. Int J Prod Econ 2012, 138:14-25.
• [30]Sonsino D, Mandelbaum M: On preference for flexibility and complexity aversion: Experimental evidence. Implement Sci 2001, 51:197-216.
• [31]Dallaert BGC, Stremersh S: Marketing mass-customized products: Striking a balance between utility and complexity. J Mark Res 2005, 42:219-227.
• [32]Grol R, Bosch MC, Hulscher MEJ, Eccles MP, Wensing M: Planning and studying improvement in patient care: The use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q 2007, 85:93-138.
• [33]Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC: Bridging research and practice: Models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med 2012, 43:337-350.
• [34]Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM: A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci 2010, 5:1-6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [35]Colquhoun HL, Brehaut JC, Sales A, Ivers N, Grimshaw J, Michie S, Carroll K, Cahlifoux M, Eva KW: A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback. Implement Sci 2013, 8:1-8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Bhattacharyya O, Reeves S, Garfinkel S, Zwarenstein M: Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed. Implement Sci 2006, 1:1-3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Oxman AD, Fretheim A, Flottorp S: The OFF theory of research utilization. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:113-116.
• [38]Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York: Free Press; 2003.
• [39]Scheirer MA: Linking sustainability research to intervention types. Am J Public Health 2013, 103:e73-e80.
• [40]Isett KR, Burnam MA, Coleman-Beattie B, Hyde PS, Morrissey JP, Magnabosco J, Rapp CA, Ganju V, Goldman HH: The state policy context of implementation issues for evidence-based practices in mental health. Psychiatr Serv 2007, 58:914-921.
• [41]Magnabosco JL: Innovations in mental health services implementation: A report on state-level data from the U.S. evidence-based practices project. Implement Sci 2006, 1:1-11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [42]Lee ML, Mittman BS: Quantitative approaches for studying context-dependent, time-varying, adaptable complex social interventions. Los Angeles, CA; 2012. In [http://vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/for_researchers/cyber_seminars/archives/video_archive.cfm?SessionID=555 webcite]
• [43]Spring B: Health decision making: Lynchpin of evidence-based practice. Med Decis Mak 2008, 28:866-874.
• [44]Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009, 4:1-15. BioMed Central Full Text
• [45]Aarons GA, Cafri G, Lugo L, Sawitzky A: Expanding the domains of attitudes towards evidence-based practice: The Evidence Based Attitudes Scale-50. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 2012, 39:331-340.
• [46]Glisson C, Landsverk J, Schoenwald S, Kelleher K, Hoagwood KE, Mayberg S, Green P: Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: implications for research and practice. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 2008, 35:98-113.
• [47]Weiner BJ, Belden CM, Bergmire DM, Johnston M: The meaning and measurement of implementation climate. Implement Sci 2011, 6:1-12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [48]Weiner BJ, Amick H, Lee S-YD YD: Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: A review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Med Care Res Rev 2008, 65:379-436.
• [49]Aarons GA, Sommerfeld DH: Leadership, innovation climate, and attitudes toward evidence-based practice during a statewide implementation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2012, 51:423-431.
• [50]Corrigan PW, Lickey SE, Campion J, Rashid F: Mental health team leadership and consumers’ satisfaction and quality of life. Psychiatr Serv 2000, 51:781-785.
• [51]Schell SF, Luke DA, Schooley MW, Elliott MB, Herbers SH, Mueller NB, Bunger AC: Public health program capacity for sustainability: A new framework. Implement Sci 2013, 8:1-9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [52]Program Sustainability Assessment Tool visit http://‘.sustaintool.org webcite.
• [53]Kimberly JR, Cook JM: Organizational measurement and the implementation of innovations in mental health services. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 2008, 35:11-20.
• [54]Raghavan R, Bright CL, Shadoin AL: Toward a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Implement Sci 2008, 3:1-9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [55]Wensing M, Oxman A, Baker R, Godycki-Cwirko M, Flottorp S, Szecsenyi J, Grimshaw J, Eccles M: Tailored implementation for chronic diseases (TICD): A project protocol. Implement Sci 2011, 6:1-8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [56]Baker R, Cammosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, Robertson N: Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 3:1-77. Art. No.: CD005470
• [57]Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Horwitz S, Chamberlain P, Hurlburt M, Landsverk J: Mixed methods designs in implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 2011, 38:44-53.
• [58]Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Baumann AA, Mittman BS, Aarons GA, Brownson RC, Glisson CA, Chambers D: The implementation research institute: Training mental health implementation researchers in the United States. Implement Sci 2013, 8:1-12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [59]Sanders IT: The Community: An Introduction to a Social System. 2nd edition. New York: Ronald Press; 1966.
• [60]Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K: Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2013. in press
• [61]Murphy MK, Black N, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J, Marteau T: Consensus development methods and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess 1998, 2:1-88.
• [62]Collins KMT: Advanced sampling designs in mixed research: Current practices and emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. In Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and beavhioral research. 2nd edition. Edited by Tachakkori A, Teddlie C. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2010:353-377.
• [63]Hasson F, Keeney S: Enhancing rigor in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting Soc Change 2011, 78:1695-1704.
• [64]Nambisan S, Agarwal R, Tanniru M: Organizational mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in information technology. MIS Q 1999, 23:365-395.
• [65]Fishburn PC, Brams SJ: Expected utility and approval voting. Syst Res Behav Sci 1981, 26:136-142.
• [66]Burke JK, O’Campo P, Peak GL, Gielen AC, McDonnel KA, Trochim WMK: An introduction to concept mapping as a participatory public health research method. Qual Health Res 2005, 15:1392-1410.
• [67]Concept Systems Global Max© [http://www.conceptsystems.com/content/view/the-concept-system.html webcite]
• [68]Trochim WMK, Kane M: Concept mapping: An introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. Int J Qual Health Care 2005, 17:187-191.
• [69]Brownson RC, Kelly CM, Eyler AA, Carnoske C, Grost L, Handy SL, Maddock JE, Pluto D, Ritacco BA, Sallis JF, Schmid TL: Environmental and policy approaches for promoting physical activity in the United States: A research agenda. J Phys Act Health 2008, 5:488-503.
• [70]Green AE, Aarons GA: A comparison of policy and direct practice stakeholder perceptions of factors affecting evidence-based practice implementation using concept mapping. Implement Sci 2011, 6:1-12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [71]Trochim WMK: The reliability of concept mapping. Dallas, Texas; 1993.
• [72]Orme BK: Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. Madison, WI: Research Publishers; 2010.
• [73]Johnson RB, Orme B, Pinnell J: Simulating market preference with “build your own” data. In Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings: 29-31 March 2006. Delray Beach, FL: Oren, UT: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2006:239-253.
• [74]Orme B: Menu-Based Choice (MBC) for Multi-Check Choice Experiments. Oren, UT: Sawtooth Software, Inc.; 2012.