Christopher J Miller1,2, Miya L Barnett3, Ana A Baumann4, Cassidy A Gutner5,6, Shannon Wiltsey-Stirman7,8. 1. VA Boston Healthcare System, Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), Boston, MA, USA. Christopher.Miller8@va.gov. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Christopher.Miller8@va.gov. 3. Department of Counseling, Clinical, & School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. 4. Washington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. ViiV Healthcare, Innovation & Implementation Science, Research Triangle, NC, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 7. National Center for PTSD Dissemination and Training Division, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementation strategies are necessary to ensure that evidence-based practices are successfully incorporated into routine clinical practice. Such strategies, however, are frequently modified to fit local populations, settings, and contexts. While such modifications can be crucial to implementation success, the literature on documenting and evaluating them is virtually nonexistent. In this paper, we therefore describe the development of a new framework for documenting modifications to implementation strategies. DISCUSSION: We employed a multifaceted approach to developing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS), incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives. Development steps included presentations of initial versions of the FRAME-IS to solicit structured feedback from individual implementation scientists ("think-aloud" exercises) and larger, international groups of researchers. The FRAME-IS includes core and supplementary modules to document modifications to implementation strategies: what is modified, the nature of the modification (including the relationship to core elements or functions), the primary goal and rationale for the modification, timing of the modification, participants in the modification decision-making process, and how widespread the modification is. We provide an example of application of the FRAME-IS to an implementation project and provide guidance on how it may be used in future work. CONCLUSION: Increasing attention is being given to modifications to evidence-based practices, but little work has investigated modifications to the implementation strategies used to implement such practices. To fill this gap, the FRAME-IS is meant to be a flexible, practical tool for documenting modifications to implementation strategies. Its use may help illuminate the pivotal processes and mechanisms by which implementation strategies exert their effects.
BACKGROUND: Implementation strategies are necessary to ensure that evidence-based practices are successfully incorporated into routine clinical practice. Such strategies, however, are frequently modified to fit local populations, settings, and contexts. While such modifications can be crucial to implementation success, the literature on documenting and evaluating them is virtually nonexistent. In this paper, we therefore describe the development of a new framework for documenting modifications to implementation strategies. DISCUSSION: We employed a multifaceted approach to developing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS), incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives. Development steps included presentations of initial versions of the FRAME-IS to solicit structured feedback from individual implementation scientists ("think-aloud" exercises) and larger, international groups of researchers. The FRAME-IS includes core and supplementary modules to document modifications to implementation strategies: what is modified, the nature of the modification (including the relationship to core elements or functions), the primary goal and rationale for the modification, timing of the modification, participants in the modification decision-making process, and how widespread the modification is. We provide an example of application of the FRAME-IS to an implementation project and provide guidance on how it may be used in future work. CONCLUSION: Increasing attention is being given to modifications to evidence-based practices, but little work has investigated modifications to the implementation strategies used to implement such practices. To fill this gap, the FRAME-IS is meant to be a flexible, practical tool for documenting modifications to implementation strategies. Its use may help illuminate the pivotal processes and mechanisms by which implementation strategies exert their effects.
Authors: Cam Escoffery; Erin Lebow-Skelley; Hallie Udelson; Elaine A Böing; Richard Wood; Maria E Fernandez; Patricia D Mullen Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: JoAnn E Kirchner; Mona J Ritchie; Jeffery A Pitcock; Louise E Parker; Geoffrey M Curran; John C Fortney Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Cam Escoffery; E Lebow-Skelley; R Haardoerfer; E Boing; H Udelson; R Wood; M Hartman; M E Fernandez; P D Mullen Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Tammy K Stump; Kristen Ethier; Lisa R Hirschhorn; Andrea Dakin; Nora Bouacha; Angela Freeman; Jacqueline Bannon; Walter Gómez; Judith T Moskowitz; Alida Bouris Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Sofia F Garcia; Justin D Smith; Michael Kallen; Kimberly A Webster; Madison Lyleroehr; Sheetal Kircher; Michael Bass; David Cella; Frank J Penedo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Kim R Quimby; Madhuvanti M Murphy; Heather Harewood; Christina Howitt; Ian Hambleton; Selvi M Jeyaseelan; Natalie Greaves; Natasha Sobers Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2022-01-24
Authors: Christopher F Akiba; Byron J Powell; Brian W Pence; Minh X B Nguyen; Carol Golin; Vivian Go Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Tzeyu L Michaud; Jennie L Hill; Kate A Heelan; R T Bartee; Bryce M Abbey; Ali Malmkar; John Masker; Caitlin Golden; Gwenndolyn Porter; Russell E Glasgow; Paul A Estabrooks Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2022-04-05
Authors: Sze Lin Yoong; Nicole Pearson; Kathryn Reilly; Luke Wolfenden; Jannah Jones; Nicole Nathan; Anthony Okely; Patti-Jean Naylor; Jacklyn Jackson; Luke Giles; Noor Imad; Karen Gillham; John Wiggers; Penny Reeves; Kate Highfield; Melanie Lum; Alice Grady Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Christina T Yuan; Emma E McGinty; Arlene Dalcin; Stacy Goldsholl; Faith Dickerson; Kimberly A Gudzune; Gerald J Jerome; David A Thompson; Karly A Murphy; Eva Minahan; Gail L Daumit Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Meg Simione; Haley Farrar-Muir; Fernanda Neri Mini; Meghan E Perkins; Man Luo; Holly Frost; E John Orav; Joshua Metlay; Adrian H Zai; Caroline J Kistin; Kerry Sease; Simon J Hambidge; Elsie M Taveras Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 1.744