Lewis Cara C, Frank Hannah E, Cruden Gracelyn, Kim Bo, Stahmer Aubyn C, Lyon Aaron R, Albers Bianca, Aarons Gregory A, Beidas Rinad S, Mittman Brian S, Weiner Bryan J, Williams Nate J, Powell Byron J
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA.
The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Box G-BH, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Implement Sci Commun. 2024 Sep 16;5(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s43058-024-00633-5.
Implementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms-the processes responsible for change-is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.
Building on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: "What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?" The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.
From this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.
This research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.
实施科学领域的学者在确定促进或阻碍循证干预措施实施的因素以及测试可能改变这些因素的策略方面取得了重大进展。然而,关于策略如何或为何起作用、在何种背景下起作用以及对谁起作用的研究却很少。研究实施机制——导致变化的过程——对于推动实施科学领域的发展并提高其在促进公平政策和实践变革方面的价值至关重要。医疗保健研究与质量局资助了一个系列会议,以实现两个目标:(1)制定关于实施机制的研究议程,(2)积极向研究、政策和实践领域的受众传播该研究议程。本文介绍了由此产生的研究议程,包括鼓励其执行的优先事项和行动。
基于先前的概念映射工作,在一个为期3天的半结构化面对面工作会议中,23位美国研究人员采用改进的名义小组法来确定应对实施机制研究挑战的优先事项和行动。在三个120分钟的会议中的每一个会议期间,小组对提示做出回应:“需要采取哪些行动来推动这项研究向前发展?”各小组集思广益提出行动建议,然后与整个小组分享,并在接受结构化小组流程培训的主持人的支持下进行讨论。主持人将关键和新颖的想法归纳为主题。与会者对他们优先选择在第四个120分钟会议中讨论的六个主题进行投票,在此期间,小组将优先行动付诸实施。随后,所有想法由作者团队的一部分进行整理、合并和修订,以使其更清晰。
通过这个多步骤过程,在10个优先领域中出现了150项行动,这些行动共同构成了研究议程。行动包括离散的活动、项目或产品,以及改变研究方式以加强实施机制研究的方法。
本研究议程提升了指导实施机制选择、设计和评估的行动。通过划定应对实施机制研究挑战的推荐行动,本研究议程有助于扩展实施科学领域,从研究什么有效扩展到研究策略如何及为何起作用、在何种背景下起作用、对谁起作用以及与哪些干预措施相关。