3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      An iterative approach to developing a multifaceted implementation strategy for a complex eHealth intervention within clinical practice

      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 number of complex eHealth interventions has increased considerably. Despite available implementation theory outlining well-designed strategies, implementing complex interventions within practice proves challenging and often does not lead to sustainable use. To improve sustainability, theory and practice should be addressed during the development of an implementation strategy. By subsequently transparently reporting the executed theory-based steps and their corresponding practice findings, others can learn from these valuable lessons learned. This study outlines the iterative approach by which a multifaceted implementation strategy for a complex eHealth intervention in clinical practice was developed, tested and refined.

          Methods

          We implemented the BENEFIT program, an advanced eHealth platform with Personal Health Portal facilitating healthy living in cardiac patients. In six iterative phases alternating between theory and practice, the implementation strategy was developed, tested and refined. The initial implementation strategy (phase 1) was drawn up using the Implementation model and RE-AIM. Subsequently, this strategy was further updated in brainstorming sessions and group discussions with twenty key stakeholders from three cardiac care centres and then evaluated in a pilot (phases 2 and 3).

          Results

          The pilot of the program led to the identification of (context-specific) key challenges in practice (phase 4), which were subsequently connected back to broader theory (phase 5) using the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). In the final phase, practice recommendations tackling the key challenges were formulated (phase 6) based on CFIR theory, the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool, and stakeholders’ input and feedback. These recommendations were then added to the refined strategy. Thus, executing this approach led to the realisation and use of a multifaceted theory-informed practice-based implementation strategy.

          Conclusion

          This case study gives an in-depth description of an iterative approach to developing an evidence-based, practice-tailored strategy for implementing a complex eHealth intervention in cardiac care. As such, this study may serve as a blueprint for other researchers aspiring to implement complex eHealth interventions within clinical practice sustainably.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-023-10439-1.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • 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

            Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

            Background Implementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers. Discussion Theoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks). Summary This article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited “how-to” support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                r.v.h.ijzerman@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                21 December 2023
                21 December 2023
                2023
                : 23
                : 1455
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University, ( https://ror.org/027bh9e22) Wassenaarseweg 52, Leiden, 2333 the Netherlands
                [2 ]Centre of expertise Health Innovation, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, ( https://ror.org/021zvq422) Den Haag, the Netherlands
                [3 ]GRID grid.413202.6, ISNI 0000 0004 0626 2490, Department of Cardiology, , Tergooi MC, ; Blaricum and Hilversum, the Netherlands
                [4 ]Vital10, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [5 ]GRID grid.7177.6, ISNI 0000000084992262, Department of Cardiology, , Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, ; Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [6 ]GRID grid.10419.3d, ISNI 0000000089452978, Department of Cardiology, , Leiden University Medical Centre, ; Leiden, the Netherlands
                Article
                10439
                10.1186/s12913-023-10439-1
                10740292
                38129824
                fea485fc-2be0-4c75-bda2-ef9e8a91e540
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This 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
                : 24 February 2023
                : 5 December 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: The Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative: An Initiative with the support of the Dutch Heart Foundation and ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development)
                Award ID: CVON2016-12 BENEFIT
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                Health & Social care
                implementation,implementation strategy,routine practice,ehealth,ehealth intervention,delivery of health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content326

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors280