22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The CFIR Card Game: a new approach for working with implementation teams to identify challenges and strategies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-020-00099-1.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

          Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project

            Background Identifying, developing, and testing implementation strategies are important goals of implementation science. However, these efforts have been complicated by the use of inconsistent language and inadequate descriptions of implementation strategies in the literature. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aimed to refine a published compilation of implementation strategy terms and definitions by systematically gathering input from a wide range of stakeholders with expertise in implementation science and clinical practice. Methods Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation and clinical practice who engaged in three rounds of a modified Delphi process to generate consensus on implementation strategies and definitions. The first and second rounds involved Web-based surveys soliciting comments on implementation strategy terms and definitions. After each round, iterative refinements were made based upon participant feedback. The third round involved a live polling and consensus process via a Web-based platform and conference call. Results Participants identified substantial concerns with 31% of the terms and/or definitions and suggested five additional strategies. Seventy-five percent of definitions from the originally published compilation of strategies were retained after voting. Ultimately, the expert panel reached consensus on a final compilation of 73 implementation strategies. Conclusions This research advances the field by improving the conceptual clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of implementation strategies that can be used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Future phases of ERIC will focus on developing conceptually distinct categories of strategies as well as ratings for each strategy’s importance and feasibility. Next, the expert panel will recommend multifaceted strategies for hypothetical yet real-world scenarios that vary by sites’ endorsement of evidence-based programs and practices and the strength of contextual supports that surround the effort. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting

              Implementation strategies have unparalleled importance in implementation science, as they constitute the ‘how to’ component of changing healthcare practice. Yet, implementation researchers and other stakeholders are not able to fully utilize the findings of studies focusing on implementation strategies because they are often inconsistently labelled and poorly described, are rarely justified theoretically, lack operational definitions or manuals to guide their use, and are part of ‘packaged’ approaches whose specific elements are poorly understood. We address the challenges of specifying and reporting implementation strategies encountered by researchers who design, conduct, and report research on implementation strategies. Specifically, we propose guidelines for naming, defining, and operationalizing implementation strategies in terms of seven dimensions: actor, the action, action targets, temporality, dose, implementation outcomes addressed, and theoretical justification. Ultimately, implementation strategies cannot be used in practice or tested in research without a full description of their components and how they should be used. As with all intervention research, their descriptions must be precise enough to enable measurement and ‘reproducibility.’ We propose these recommendations to improve the reporting of implementation strategies in research studies and to stimulate further identification of elements pertinent to implementation strategies that should be included in reporting guidelines for implementation strategies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                myra.piat@mcgill.ca
                megan.wainwright@mail.mcgill.ca
                eleni.sofouli@mail.mcgill.ca
                helene.albert@umoncton.ca
                caseyr@douglascollege.ca
                marie-pier.rivest@umoncton.ca
                catherine.briand@uqtr.ca
                sarah.baker.comtl@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
                lise.labonte1@gmail.com
                esl2658@umoncton.ca
                joseph.orourke@ubc.ca
                Journal
                Implement Sci Commun
                Implement Sci Commun
                Implementation Science Communications
                BioMed Central (London )
                2662-2211
                7 January 2021
                7 January 2021
                2021
                : 2
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.14709.3b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8649, Department of Psychiatry, , McGill University, Douglas Hospital Research Centre, ; Montreal, Quebec Canada
                [2 ]GRID grid.8250.f, ISNI 0000 0000 8700 0572, Department of Anthropology, , Durham University, ; Durham, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.265686.9, ISNI 0000 0001 2175 1792, École de Travail Social, , Université de Moncton, ; Moncton, New Brunswick Canada
                [4 ]GRID grid.420681.9, ISNI 0000 0000 9606 1940, Department of Psychology, , Douglas College, ; New Westminster, British Columbia Canada
                [5 ]GRID grid.265703.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2197 8284, Department of Occupational Therapy, , Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, ; Trois-Rivières, Québec Canada
                [6 ]GRID grid.17091.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 2288 9830, Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, , University of British Columbia, ; Vancouver, British Columbia Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5933-0974
                Article
                99
                10.1186/s43058-020-00099-1
                7791817
                33413699
                509cc874-c3b1-4793-adbf-76d5d57e9c85
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 17 March 2020
                : 29 November 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
                Award ID: 148172,
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000156, Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé;
                Award ID: -
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000245, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research;
                Award ID: 0
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008794, Research Manitoba;
                Award ID: 0
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Fondation de la recherche en santé du Nouveau-Brunswick (CA)
                Award ID: 0
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Methodology
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                consolidated framework for implementation research,expert recommendations for implementing change,games,implementation teams,cfir-eric matching tool,mental health recovery,housing,guidelines,canada

                Comments

                Comment on this article