Dennis P Watson1, Nyssa Snow-Hill2, Lisa Saldana3, Angela L Walden4, Monte Staton2, Angela Kong5, Geri Donenberg2. 1. Lighthouse Institute, Chestnut Health Systems. 2. Center for Dissemination and Implementation Science, University of Illinois at Chicago. 3. Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, OR, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago. 5. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes, & Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementation science's focus on establishing implementation strategy effectiveness has overshadowed the need to understand differential performance of such strategies under various conditions. Methods allowing for assessment between implementation context and process can help address this gap. This paper provides a detailed description of a mixed method procedure for assessing factors related to the implementation context and process intersection, which was developed as part of the pilot study of the Housing First Technical Assistance and Training (HFTAT) Program, a multifaceted strategy designed to support Housing First model implementation. METHODS: The HFTAT was pilot tested among a sample of three organizations. Our mixed method approach combines two tools often used in implementation research-the Stages of Implementation Completion and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-in a novel way. Several stages to analysis were completed, starting with a separate analysis of data pertaining to each measure and then two levels of mixed method analysis. RESULTS: The approach provided a better understanding of the issues that impacted the implementation guided by the HFTAT, suggesting: (1) individual determinants seemed to have a bigger impact based on the number of SIC phases they affected, (2) implementation context and process were connected through climate-related factors in the inner setting that made the sites more or less responsive to addressing identified barriers, and (3) there is a need to better assess context factors to identify areas where implementation drivers should be better targeted to facilitate change, and this is supported by prior research. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the underlying factors impacting a setting's performance related to a specific implementation strategy has potential to improve decision-making and optimize future implementation efforts. The approach likely be as successful combining the SIC with other determinant frameworks and should be utilized at the onset of an implementation project to maximize its usefulness.
BACKGROUND: Implementation science's focus on establishing implementation strategy effectiveness has overshadowed the need to understand differential performance of such strategies under various conditions. Methods allowing for assessment between implementation context and process can help address this gap. This paper provides a detailed description of a mixed method procedure for assessing factors related to the implementation context and process intersection, which was developed as part of the pilot study of the Housing First Technical Assistance and Training (HFTAT) Program, a multifaceted strategy designed to support Housing First model implementation. METHODS: The HFTAT was pilot tested among a sample of three organizations. Our mixed method approach combines two tools often used in implementation research-the Stages of Implementation Completion and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-in a novel way. Several stages to analysis were completed, starting with a separate analysis of data pertaining to each measure and then two levels of mixed method analysis. RESULTS: The approach provided a better understanding of the issues that impacted the implementation guided by the HFTAT, suggesting: (1) individual determinants seemed to have a bigger impact based on the number of SIC phases they affected, (2) implementation context and process were connected through climate-related factors in the inner setting that made the sites more or less responsive to addressing identified barriers, and (3) there is a need to better assess context factors to identify areas where implementation drivers should be better targeted to facilitate change, and this is supported by prior research. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the underlying factors impacting a setting's performance related to a specific implementation strategy has potential to improve decision-making and optimize future implementation efforts. The approach likely be as successful combining the SIC with other determinant frameworks and should be utilized at the onset of an implementation project to maximize its usefulness.
Authors: Kelsey S Dickson; Gregory A Aarons; Laura Gutermuth Anthony; Lauren Kenworthy; Brent R Crandal; Katherine Williams; Lauren Brookman-Frazee Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2020-04-27
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Enola K Proctor; John Landsverk; Ana A Baumann; Brian S Mittman; Gregory A Aarons; Ross C Brownson; Charles Glisson; David Chambers Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Allyson L Dir; Dennis P Watson; Matthew Zhiss; Lisa Taylor; Bethany C Bray; Alan McGuire Journal: Trials Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: James H Ford; Hannah Cheng; Michele Gassman; Harrison Fontaine; Hélène Chokron Garneau; Ryan Keith; Edward Michael; Mark P McGovern Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 7.960