Kate Churruca1, Kristiana Ludlow1, Natalie Taylor2, Janet C Long1, Stephanie Best1,3, Jeffrey Braithwaite1. 1. Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 2. Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. 3. Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The field of implementation science has developed in response to slow and inconsistent translation of evidence into practice. Despite utilizing increasingly sophisticated approaches to implementation, including applying a complexity science lens and conducting realist evaluations, challenges remain to getting the kinds of outcomes hoped for by implementation efforts. These include gaining access and buy-in from those implementing the change and accounting for the influence of local context. One emerging approach to address these challenges is embedded implementation research-a collaborative, adaptive approach to improvement. It involves researchers and implementers working together in situ from the outset of, and throughout, an implementation project. Both groups can benefit from the collaboration: it increases the rigor of evaluation, provides opportunities to improve the intervention through direct feedback, and promotes better on-the-ground understanding of the change process. We aimed to examine the potential benefits, and some of the challenges, of increased embeddedness. METHOD: We performed a multi-case analysis of implementation research projects that varied by degree of embeddedness. RESULTS: Embedded implementation research may offer a range of advantages over dichotomized research-practice designs, including better understanding of local context and direct feedback to improve the implementation along the way. We present a model that spans four approaches: dichotomized research-practice, collaborative linking-up, partially-embedded, and deep immersion. CONCLUSION: Embedded implementation research approaches hold promise in comparison to traditional dichotomized-research practice designs, where the research is external to the implementation and conducts a summative evaluation. We are only beginning to understand how such partnerships operate in practice and what makes them successful. Our analysis suggests the time has come to consider such approaches.
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The field of implementation science has developed in response to slow and inconsistent translation of evidence into practice. Despite utilizing increasingly sophisticated approaches to implementation, including applying a complexity science lens and conducting realist evaluations, challenges remain to getting the kinds of outcomes hoped for by implementation efforts. These include gaining access and buy-in from those implementing the change and accounting for the influence of local context. One emerging approach to address these challenges is embedded implementation research-a collaborative, adaptive approach to improvement. It involves researchers and implementers working together in situ from the outset of, and throughout, an implementation project. Both groups can benefit from the collaboration: it increases the rigor of evaluation, provides opportunities to improve the intervention through direct feedback, and promotes better on-the-ground understanding of the change process. We aimed to examine the potential benefits, and some of the challenges, of increased embeddedness. METHOD: We performed a multi-case analysis of implementation research projects that varied by degree of embeddedness. RESULTS: Embedded implementation research may offer a range of advantages over dichotomized research-practice designs, including better understanding of local context and direct feedback to improve the implementation along the way. We present a model that spans four approaches: dichotomized research-practice, collaborative linking-up, partially-embedded, and deep immersion. CONCLUSION: Embedded implementation research approaches hold promise in comparison to traditional dichotomized-research practice designs, where the research is external to the implementation and conducts a summative evaluation. We are only beginning to understand how such partnerships operate in practice and what makes them successful. Our analysis suggests the time has come to consider such approaches.
Authors: Donella Piper; Christine Jorm; Rick Iedema; Nicholas Goodwin; Andrew Searles; Lisa McFayden Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Anita A Vashi; Elizabeth A Orvek; Anaïs Tuepker; George L Jackson; Allison Amrhein; Brynn Cole; Steven M Asch; Allen L Gifford; Jennifer Lindquist; Nell J Marshall; Summer Newell; Melissa A Smigelsky; Brandolyn S White; Lindsay K White; Sarah L Cutrona Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2021-06-23
Authors: Agnes Binagwaho; Miriam F Frisch; Kelechi Udoh; Laura Drown; Jovial Thomas Ntawukuriryayo; Dieudonné Nkurunziza; Kateri B Donahoe; Lisa R Hirschhorn Journal: Int J Health Policy Manag Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Bradley H Wagenaar; Wilson H Hammett; Courtney Jackson; Dana L Atkins; Jennifer M Belus; Christopher G Kemp Journal: Glob Ment Health (Camb) Date: 2020-03-02
Authors: James Smith; Frances Rapport; Tracey A O'Brien; Stephanie Smith; Vanessa J Tyrrell; Emily V A Mould; Janet C Long; Hossai Gul; Jeremy Cullis; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Andrew J Knighton; Jacob Kean; Doug Wolfe; Lauren Allen; Jason Jacobs; Lori Carpenter; Carrie Winberg; Jay G Berry; Ithan D Peltan; Colin K Grissom; Raj Srivastava Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2020-07-28
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; Andrew J Knighton; Emily Griese; Sarah M Greene; Paula Lozano; Amy M Kilbourne; Diana S M Buist; Karen Crotty; A Rani Elwy; Lee A Fleisher; Ralph Gonzales; Amy G Huebschmann; Heather M Limper; NithyaPriya S Ramalingam; Katherine Wilemon; P Michael Ho; Christian D Helfrichfcr Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2021-06