Myra Piat1, Megan Wainwright2, Eleni Sofouli3, Hélène Albert4, Regina Casey5, Marie-Pier Rivest4, Catherine Briand6, Sarah Kasdorf2, Lise Labonté2, Sébastien LeBlanc4, Joseph J O'Rourke7. 1. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Douglas Hospital Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. myra.piat@mcgill.ca. 2. Department of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, UK. 3. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Douglas Hospital Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. École de Travail Social, Université de Moncton, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. 5. Department of Psychology, Douglas College, New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada. 6. Department of Occupational Therapy, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada. 7. Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies are key resources for identifying implementation barriers and strategies. However, their respective density and complexity make their application to implementation planning outside of academia challenging. We developed the CFIR Card Game as a way of working with multi-stakeholder implementation teams that were implementing mental health recovery into their services, to identify barriers and strategies to overcome them. The aim of this descriptive evaluation is to describe how the game was prepared, played, used and received by teams and researchers and their perception of the clarity of the CFIR constructs. METHODS: We used the new CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool v.1 to design the game. We produced a deck of cards with each of the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool barrier narratives representing all 39 CFIR constructs. Teams played the game at the pre-implementation stage at a time when they were actively engaged in a planning process for implementing their selected recovery-oriented innovation. The teams placed each card in either the YES or NO column of the board in response to whether they anticipated experiencing this barrier in their setting. Teams were also asked about the clarity of the barrier narratives and were provided with plain language versions if unclear. Researchers completed a reflection form following the game, and participants completed an open-added questionnaire that included questions specific to the CFIR Card Game. We applied a descriptive coding approach to analysis. RESULTS: Four descriptive themes emerged from this analysis: (1) the CFIR Card Game as a useful and engaging process, (2) difficulties understanding CFIR construct barrier narratives, (3) strengths of the game's design and structure and room for improvement and (4) mediating factors: facilitator preparation and multi-stakeholder dynamics. Quantitative findings regarding the clarity of the barrier narratives were integrated with qualitative data under theme 2. Only seven of the 39 original barrier narratives were judged to be clear by all teams. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIR Card Game can be used to enhance implementation planning. Plain language versions of CFIR construct barrier narratives are needed. Our plain language versions require further testing and refining.
BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies are key resources for identifying implementation barriers and strategies. However, their respective density and complexity make their application to implementation planning outside of academia challenging. We developed the CFIR Card Game as a way of working with multi-stakeholder implementation teams that were implementing mental health recovery into their services, to identify barriers and strategies to overcome them. The aim of this descriptive evaluation is to describe how the game was prepared, played, used and received by teams and researchers and their perception of the clarity of the CFIR constructs. METHODS: We used the new CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool v.1 to design the game. We produced a deck of cards with each of the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool barrier narratives representing all 39 CFIR constructs. Teams played the game at the pre-implementation stage at a time when they were actively engaged in a planning process for implementing their selected recovery-oriented innovation. The teams placed each card in either the YES or NO column of the board in response to whether they anticipated experiencing this barrier in their setting. Teams were also asked about the clarity of the barrier narratives and were provided with plain language versions if unclear. Researchers completed a reflection form following the game, and participants completed an open-added questionnaire that included questions specific to the CFIR Card Game. We applied a descriptive coding approach to analysis. RESULTS: Four descriptive themes emerged from this analysis: (1) the CFIR Card Game as a useful and engaging process, (2) difficulties understanding CFIR construct barrier narratives, (3) strengths of the game's design and structure and room for improvement and (4) mediating factors: facilitator preparation and multi-stakeholder dynamics. Quantitative findings regarding the clarity of the barrier narratives were integrated with qualitative data under theme 2. Only seven of the 39 original barrier narratives were judged to be clear by all teams. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIR Card Game can be used to enhance implementation planning. Plain language versions of CFIR construct barrier narratives are needed. Our plain language versions require further testing and refining.
Entities:
Keywords:
CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool; Canada; Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change; Games; Guidelines; Housing; Implementation teams; Mental health recovery
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: Byron J Powell; Thomas J Waltz; Matthew J Chinman; Laura J Damschroder; Jeffrey L Smith; Monica M Matthieu; Enola K Proctor; JoAnn E Kirchner Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Hilary Pinnock; Melanie Barwick; Christopher R Carpenter; Sandra Eldridge; Gonzalo Grandes; Chris J Griffiths; Jo Rycroft-Malone; Paul Meissner; Elizabeth Murray; Anita Patel; Aziz Sheikh; Stephanie J C Taylor Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-03-06
Authors: Myra Piat; Megan Wainwright; Marie-Pier Rivest; Eleni Sofouli; Tristan von Kirchenheim; Hélène Albert; Regina Casey; Lise Labonté; Joseph J O'Rourke; Sébastien LeBlanc Journal: Int J Ment Health Syst Date: 2022-10-09