OBJECTIVE: This study, by applying the feedback process of the organizational learning model, examined the relationships among group learning, individuals\' and groups\' internalization of institutionalized evidence-based practice (I-EBP), and nurses\' sustainment of I-EBP.
METHODS: Twelve hospitals were included in this cross-sectional study, with 1,741 nurses from 59 wards. Anonymous questionnaires were administered from October to December 2021. Participants self-reported their wards\' group learning, internalization of I-EBP, sustainment of I-EBP, EBP beliefs, intra-hospital transfers, and nursing research experiences. The number of nurses and I-EBP introduction length and type of I-EBP were assessed. Internalization of I-EBP of nurses and groups was considered the mediating variable, while group learning and nurses\' sustainment of I-EBP were the independent and dependent variables, respectively. Significant variables in bivariate analyses were used as control variables. Multi-level Mediation Analysis and a significance test of indirect effect using the bootstrap method were conducted.
RESULTS: Responses from 360 nurses in 48 wards from 12 hospitals were analyzed. Groups\' internalization of I-EBP significantly mediated the relationship between group learning and nurses\' sustainment of I-EBP. In contrast, no significant mediating effect of nurses\' internalization of I-EBP was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: In the feedback process of organizational learning, group learning and its subsequent effects on individuals and groups have not been previously examined. Regardless of the nurses\' degree of internalization of I-EBP, those who belong to the ward with a high degree of internalization of I-EBP are more likely to sustain it. Conducting group learning may prevent superficial practice, resulting in its sustainability.

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in remote Australia have initiated bold policies for health-enabling stores. Benchmarking, a data-driven and facilitated \'audit and feedback\' with action planning process, provides a potential strategy to strengthen and scale health-enabling best-practice adoption by remote community store directors/owners. We aim to co-design a benchmarking model with five partner organisations and test its effectiveness with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community stores in remote Australia.
METHODS: Study design is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with consenting eligible stores (located in very remote Northern Territory (NT) of Australia, primary grocery store for an Aboriginal community, and serviced by a Nutrition Practitioner with a study partner organisation). The Benchmarking model is informed by research evidence, purpose-built best-practice audit and feedback tools, and co-designed with partner organisation and community representatives. The intervention comprises two full benchmarking cycles (one per year, 2022/23 and 2023/24) of assessment, feedback, action planning and action implementation. Assessment of stores includes i adoption status of 21 evidence-and industry-informed health-enabling policies for remote stores, ii implementation of health-enabling best-practice using a purpose-built Store Scout App, iii price of a standardised healthy diet using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healthy Diets ASAP protocol; and, iv healthiness of food purchasing using sales data indicators. Partner organisations feedback reports and co-design action plans with stores. Control stores receive assessments and continue with usual retail practice. All stores provide weekly electronic sales data to assess the primary outcome, change in free sugars (g) to energy (MJ) from all food and drinks purchased, baseline (July-December 2021) vs July-December 2023.
CONCLUSIONS: We hypothesise that the benchmarking intervention can improve the adoption of health-enabling store policy and practice and reduce sales of unhealthy foods and drinks in remote community stores of Australia. This innovative research with remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities can inform effective implementation strategies for healthy food retail more broadly.
BACKGROUND: ACTRN12622000596707, Protocol version 1.

BACKGROUND: Studies of implementation strategies range in rigor, design, and evaluated outcomes, presenting interpretation challenges for practitioners and researchers. This systematic review aimed to describe the body of research evidence testing implementation strategies across diverse settings and domains, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy to classify strategies and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to classify outcomes.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies examining implementation strategies from 2010-2022 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235592). We searched databases using terms \"implementation strategy\", \"intervention\", \"bundle\", \"support\", and their variants. We also solicited study recommendations from implementation science experts and mined existing systematic reviews. We included studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of at least one implementation strategy to improve health or health care using an outcome that could be mapped to the five evaluation dimensions of RE-AIM. Only studies meeting prespecified methodologic standards were included. We described the characteristics of studies and frequency of implementation strategy use across study arms. We also examined common strategy pairings and cooccurrence with significant outcomes.
RESULTS: Our search resulted in 16,605 studies; 129 met inclusion criteria. Studies tested an average of 6.73 strategies (0-20 range). The most assessed outcomes were Effectiveness (n=82; 64%) and Implementation (n=73; 56%). The implementation strategies most frequently occurring in the experimental arm were Distribute Educational Materials (n=99), Conduct Educational Meetings (n=96), Audit and Provide Feedback (n=76), and External Facilitation (n=59). These strategies were often used in combination. Nineteen implementation strategies were frequently tested and associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, many strategies were not tested sufficiently to draw conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: This review of 129 methodologically rigorous studies built upon prior implementation science data syntheses to identify implementation strategies that had been experimentally tested and summarized their impact on outcomes across diverse outcomes and clinical settings. We present recommendations for improving future similar efforts.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation represents a strategic change that requires alignment of leadership and support throughout organizations. Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI) is a multifaceted implementation strategy that aims to improve implementation leadership and climate within organizations through iterative cycles of leadership and climate assessment and feedback, leadership training and coaching, and strategic planning with upper-level leaders. This study tested the effects of LOCI on transformational and implementation leadership, implementation climate, implementation citizenship behavior, and EBP reach.
METHODS: A multiple cohort, cluster randomized trial tests the effect of LOCI in 60 clinics across nine behavioral health organizations in California and Arizona, USA. The study randomized clinics within organizations to either LOCI or a leadership training webinar control condition in three consecutive cohorts. Repeated web-based surveys of direct service providers (nLOCI = 201, nControl = 179) assessed leadership, implementation climate, and implementation citizenship over time. Multilevel autoregressive modeling was the primary statistical analysis such that providers (level-1) were nested within clinics (level-2). The study predicted between-condition differences at 4-, 8-, and 12-month follow-up assessments. Provider engagement in a fidelity monitoring process assessed reach of motivational interviewing (i.e., number of sessions recorded/submitted for fidelity coding). An independent sample t-test explored between condition differences in motivational interviewing reach.
RESULTS: Results indicated between condition differences at 4 months for implementation leadership, implementation climate, and implementation citizenship behavior such that greater improvements were evidenced in the LOCI condition compared to the control condition. Reach of MI was significantly greater in the LOCI vs control condition such that LOCI providers were significantly more likely to engage in the fidelity monitoring process (chi-square (1, n = 370) = 5.59, p = .018).
CONCLUSIONS: LOCI was developed based on organizational theories of strategic leadership and climate to affect organizational change processes that communicate that innovation implementation is expected, supported, and recognized as a value of the organization. The LOCI implementation strategy resulted in more positive hypothesized outcomes compared to the control condition. Organizational change strategies have utility for implementing health innovations in complex, multilevel contexts and for greater sustainment of facilitative leader behaviors, strategic implementation climate, and improved implementation outcomes.
BACKGROUND: This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov gov (NCT03042832, 2 February 2017; retrospectively registered).

BACKGROUND: Research demonstrates the importance of documenting adaptations to implementation strategies that support integration of evidence-based interventions into practice. While studies have utilized the FRAME-IS [Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications for Implementation Strategies] to collect structured adaptation data, they are limited by a focus on discrete implementation strategies (e.g., training), which do not reflect the complexity of multifaceted strategies like practice facilitation. In this paper, we apply the FRAME-IS to our trial evaluating the effectiveness of PF on implementation fidelity of an evidence-based technology-facilitated team care model for improved hypertension control within a federally qualified health center (FQHC).
METHODS: Three data sources are used to document adaptations: (1) implementation committee meeting minutes, (2) narrative reports completed by practice facilitators, and (3) structured notes captured on root cause analysis and Plan-Do-Study-Act worksheets. Text was extracted from the data sources according to the FRAME-IS modules and inputted into a master matrix for content analysis by two authors; a third author conducted member checking and code validation.
RESULTS: We modified the FRAME-IS to include part 2 of module 2 (what is modified) to add greater detail of the modified strategy, and a numbering system to track adaptations across the modules. This resulted in identification of 27 adaptations, of which 88.9% focused on supporting practices in identifying eligible patients and referring them to the intervention. About half (52.9%) of the adaptations were made to modify the context of the PF strategy to include a group-based format, add community health workers to the strategy, and to shift the implementation target to nurses. The adaptations were often widespread (83.9%), affecting all practices within the FQHC. While most adaptations were reactive (84.6%), they resulted from a systematic process of reviewing data captured by multiple sources. All adaptations included the FQHC in the decision-making process.
CONCLUSIONS: With modifications, we demonstrate the ability to document our adaptation data across the FRAME-IS modules, attesting to its applicability and value for a range of implementation strategies. Based on our experiences, we recommend refinement of tracking systems to support more nimble and practical documentation of iterative, ongoing, and multifaceted adaptations.
BACKGROUND: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03713515, Registration date: October 19, 2018.

Despite the millions of dollars awarded annually by the United States Department of Education to build implementation capacity through technical assistance (TA), data on TA effectiveness are severely lacking. Foundational to the operationalization and consistent research on TA effectiveness is the development and use of standardized TA core competencies, practices, and structures. Despite advances toward a consistent definition of TA, a gap still exists in understanding how these competencies are used within an operationalized set of TA practices to produce targeted outcomes at both individual and organizational levels to facilitate implementation of evidence-based practices. The current article describes key insights derived from the evaluation of an operationalized set of TA practices used by a nationally funded TA center, the State Implementation & Scaling Up of Evidence Based Practices (SISEP) Center. The TA provided by the Center supports the uptake of evidence-based practices in K-12 education for students with disabilities. Lessons learned include: (1) the need to understand the complexities and dependencies of operationalizing TA both longitudinally and at multiple levels of the system (state, regional, local); (2) the relative importance of building general and innovation-specific capacity for implementation success; (3) the value of using a co-design and participatory approach for effective TA delivery; (4) the need to develop TA providers\' educational and implementation fluency across areas and levels of the system receiving TA; and (5) the need to ensure coordination and alignment of TA providers from different centers. Gaining an understanding into optimal TA practices will not only provide clarity of definition fundamental to TA research, but it will also inform the conceptual framing and practice of TA.

Transferring successful implementation strategies from research to practice requires approaches for assessing fidelity to the strategy\'s core components. Implementation facilitation (IF) is a strategy involving an interactive process of problem-solving, enabling, and supporting individuals in efforts to implement clinical innovations that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and supportive interpersonal relationships. Because IF is a dynamic strategy involving numerous activities, our objective was to conduct a rigorous consensus development process to identify core activities for monitoring fidelity to IF when applied in clinical settings. We first conducted a scoping literature review to identify the range of activities used when IF has been applied in clinical settings, searching multiple citation databases for English-language articles including \"facilitation\" or other commonly-used terms for the strategy published from 1996-2015. Through multi-stage screening, 135 articles (from 94 studies) were identified for data extraction on IF activities, frequency with which IF activities were identified as \'core\' by study authors, and study outcomes. From the literature review, we identified 32 distinct IF activities and developed definitions/examples for each. Next, we conducted a 3-stage, modified-Delphi expert panel consensus development process to identify core IF activities across three implementation phases (i.e., Pre-Implementation, Implementation, Sustainment). The expert panel identified 8 core activities for the Pre-Implementation Phase, 8 core activities for the Implementation Phase, and 4 core activities for the Sustainment Phase. This work provides an important foundation for developing measures/tools to assess use of core IF activities to ensure the strategy is delivered with fidelity.

UNASSIGNED: Implementation strategies are theorized to work well when carefully matched to implementation determinants and when factors-preconditions, moderators, etc.-that influence strategy effectiveness are prospectively identified and addressed. Existing methods for strategy selection are either imprecise or require significant technical expertise and resources, undermining their utility. This article outlines refinements to causal pathway diagrams (CPDs), a method for articulating the causal process through which implementation strategies work and offers illustrations of their use.
UNASSIGNED: CPDs are a visualization tool to represent an implementation strategy, its mechanism(s) (i.e., the processes through which a strategy is thought to operate), determinants it is intended to address, factors that may impede or facilitate its effectiveness, and the series of outcomes that should be expected if the strategy is operating as intended. We offer principles for constructing CPDs and describe their key functions.
UNASSIGNED: Applications of the CPD method by study teams from two National Institute of Health-funded Implementation Science Centers and a research grant are presented. These include the use of CPDs to (a) match implementation strategies to determinants, (b) understand the conditions under which an implementation strategy works, and (c) develop causal theories of implementation strategies.
UNASSIGNED: CPDs offer a novel method for implementers to select, understand, and improve the effectiveness of implementation strategies. They make explicit theoretical assumptions about strategy operation while supporting practical planning. Early applications have led to method refinements and guidance for the field.
Advances to the Causal Pathway Diagramming Method to Enhance Implementation Precision Plain Language Summary Implementation strategies often fail to produce meaningful improvements in the outcomes we hope to impact. Better tools for choosing, designing, and evaluating implementation strategies may improve their performance. We developed a tool, causal pathway diagrams (CPD), to visualize and describe how implementation strategies are expected to work. In this article, we describe refinements to the CPD tool and accompanying approach. We use real illustrations to show how CPDs can be used to improve how to match strategies to barriers, understand the conditions in which those strategies work best, and develop generalizable theories describing how implementation strategies work. CPDs can serve as both a practical and scientific tool to improve the planning, deployment, and evaluation of implementation strategies. We demonstrate the range of ways that CPDs are being used, from a highly practical tool to improve implementation practice to a scientific approach to advance testing and theorizing about implementation strategies.

暂无摘要。

Food is Medicine (FIM) programs to improve the accessibility of fruits and vegetables (FVs) or other healthy foods among patients with low income and diet-related chronic diseases are promising to improve food and nutrition security in the United States (US). However, FIM programs are relatively new and implementation guidance for healthcare settings using an implementation science lens is lacking. We used a narrative review to describe the evidence base on barriers and facilitators to FIM program integration in US healthcare settings following the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework. Evidence surrounding the EPIS Inner Context was a focus, including constructs Leadership, Organizational Characteristics, Quality and Fidelity Monitoring and Support, Organizational Staffing Processes, and Individual Characteristics. Peer-reviewed and grey literature about barriers and facilitators to FIM programs were of interest, defined as programs that screen and refer eligible patients with diet-related chronic disease experiencing food insecurity to healthy, unprepared foods. Thirty-one sources were included in the narrative review, including 22 peer-reviewed articles, four reports, four toolkits, and one thesis. Twenty-eight sources (90%) described EPIS Inner Context facilitators and 26 sources (84%) described FIM program barriers. The most common barriers and facilitators to FIM programs were regarding Quality and Fidelity Monitoring and Support (e.g., use of electronic medical records for tracking and evaluation, strategies to support implementation) and Organizational Staffing Processes (e.g., clear delineation of staff roles and capacity); although, barriers and facilitators to FIM programs were identified among all EPIS Inner Context constructs. We synthesized barriers and facilitators to create an EPIS-informed implementation checklist for healthcare settings for use among healthcare organizations/providers, partner organizations, and technical assistance personnel. We discuss future directions to align FIM efforts with implementation science terminology and theories, models, and frameworks to improve the implementation evidence base and support FIM researchers and practitioners.