Search

BackgroundDespite the availability of multilevel evidence-based interventions for blood pressure management, poor hypertension control is common among community health center patient populations across the state of Texas and the United States. Target:BPTM is a national initiative from the American Heart Association and the American Medical Association to assist healthcare organizations and care teams in improving blood pressure control rates using evidence-based approaches and recognition of organizations who have successfully integrated the program in their practice. Using the Implementation Mapping approach, we identified determinants of Target:BPTM adoption and use and developed implementation strategies to improve program uptake and implementation in Community Health Centers in Texas.MethodsWe used Implementation Mapping (IM) to identify barriers and facilitators influencing the adoption and implementation of the Target:BPTM program and develop strategies to increase program adoption and use. We recruited four clinics across four counties in Texas and assessed barriers and facilitators at the organizational level, including electronic health records and data use. We used this data to inform clinic-specific implementation strategies based on the organization capacity and priorities feedback. We developed an implementation plan and timeline designed to improve the implementation and maintenance of Target:BPTM.ResultsAs part of the needs and capacity assessment, we collected data through interviews with CHC staff, examining gaps in needs and services (e.g., what do clinics need to implement Target:BPTM?), and assets to leverage. We worked with Community Health Centers to a) identify individuals who would be involved in the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of Target:BPTM, b) describe adoption and implementation actions, and c) identify barriers and facilitators influencing adoption and implementation. Together with partners from Community Health Center, we used the IM approach to identify and develop program goals, identify methods and strategies to address barriers, and create an implementation plan. Our strategies included monthly or biweekly meetings to provide technical support, reviewing program goals and timeline to ensure program implementation, progress toward reaching goals, and address quality improvement needs at each clinic site. We developed a Target:BPTM implementation protocol for each clinic based on the needs and capacity assessment, identification of technology use and capacity, and gap analysis. We reviewed Target:BPTM program strategies and self-measured blood pressure protocols tailored to the clinic patient population. We developed a collaborative plan, reviewed funding and capacity for implementation, and provided continuous quality improvement guidance. Ongoing process and impact evaluations using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework are underway.DiscussionThis paper provides an example of using Implementation Mapping to develop strategies to increase the adoption and implementation of evidence-based cardiovascular risk reduction interventions in Community Health Centers. The use of implementation strategies can increase the use of Target:BPTM in Community Health Centers and improve hypertension control.

BackgroundCoach2Move is a person-centered physical therapy intervention that has demonstrated success in changing physical activity behaviors among older adults in the Netherlands. In this manuscript, we describe how we developed an implementation plan for Coach2move in a U.S. population and healthcare system using Implementation Mapping.MethodsWe established an implementation planning team of researchers, patients, and clinicians. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research provided an overall structure for consideration of the context for implementation. Implementation Mapping guided the planning process. The implementation planning team worked sequentially through the five tasks of Implementation Mapping (1) Identify needs, program adopters and implementers; (2) Identify adoption and implementation outcomes, performance objectives, determinants, and matrices of change; (3) Choose theoretical models and implementation strategies; (4) Produce implementation protocols; (5) Evaluate implementation outcomes. In this manuscript, we identify our evaluation plan but not results as data collection is ongoing.ResultsClinic managers and physical therapists were identified as program adopters and implementors. Performance objectives necessary steps to achieving implementation outcomes were linked to Coach2Move fidelity indicators with implementation by the physical therapist. These included delivery of person-centered care, motivational interviewing, meaningful goal setting, shared decision-making in planning, and systematic monitoring and follow-up. Determinants linked to these performance objectives included knowledge, outcome expectations, skills and self-efficacy, and perceived norms. Implementation strategies were selected based on a review of methods effective for influencing these determinants. This resulted in four primary strategies (1) educational meetings and dynamic training, (2) peer-assessment meetings, (3) changing the electronic health record template, and (4) reminders and prompts. Measures of intervention acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility will be collected after training and early in implementation. Fidelity and effectiveness measures will be collected over the next 12-months.ConclusionImplementation mapping provided a systematic process for identifying what physical therapists would need to implement Coach2Move with fidelity. The result was a matrix linking behavioral determinants and performance objectives. These matrices of change allowed for systematic identification and tailoring of implementation strategies to the needs of our population and setting. The process was acceptable to diverse stakeholders, facilitated communication across stakeholders.

Organizational readiness is essential for high-quality implementation of innovations (programs, policies, practices, or processes). The R = MC2 heuristic describes three readiness components necessary for implementation—the general functioning of the organization (general capacities), the ability to deliver a particular innovation (innovation-specific capacities), and the motivation to implement the innovation. In this article, we describe how we used the Readiness Building System (RBS) for assessing, prioritizing, and improving readiness and Implementation Mapping (IM), a systematic process for planning implementation strategies, to build organizational readiness for implementation of sexual assault prevention evidence-based interventions (EBIs). While RBS provides an overarching approach for assessing and prioritizing readiness constructs (according to the R = MC2 heuristic; Readiness = Motivation x general Capacity × innovation specific Capacity), it does not provide specific guidance on the development and/or selection and tailoring of strategies to improve readiness. We used the five IM tasks to identify and prioritize specific readiness goals and develop readiness-building strategies to improve subcomponents described in the R = MC2 heuristic. This article illustrates how IM can be used synergistically with the RBS in applied contexts to plan implementation strategies that will improve organizational readiness and implementation outcomes. Specifically, we provide an example of using these two frameworks as part of the process of building organizational readiness for implementation of sexual assault prevention EBIs.

Introduction: A healthcare provider's ability to give a strong recommendation for the HPV vaccine is of utmost importance in increasing HPV vaccination. To reduce the burden of HPV-related cancers, there is a critical need to develop and implement theory-based interventions aimed at strengthening healthcare providers' communication about the HPV vaccine.Methods: We used Intervention Mapping (IM) steps 1–5 to develop and implement a provider-level intervention that aligns with the priorities and needs of a large, urban Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC).Results: In step 1, a diverse planning group identified barriers to HPV vaccination in clinical settings and generated process maps and a logic model of the problem. Step 2 outlined outcomes and provider performance objectives of the intervention and identified knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and normative beliefs as modifiable targets that need to change for providers to deliver strong recommendations for the HPV vaccine to parents and patients. In step 3, the planning group mapped the methods of persuasive communication, information, and modeling and skills training to behavioral targets and outlined the program practical applications (strategies) components, scope, and sequence. In steps 4 and 5, the planning group produced the intervention and planned for program implementation. The iterative and participatory process of IM resulted in modifications to the initial intervention that aligned with the needs of the FQHC.Discussion: IM provided a systematic, participatory, and iterative approach for developing a theory-based provider-level intervention aimed at strengthening healthcare providers' ability to provide a strong recommendation for the HPV vaccine to eligible patients and parents served by a large FQHC. IM assisted with the identification of behavioral targets and methods that move beyond HPV knowledge and reminders to create behavior change. IM can help researchers and planners describe the processes and rational behind developing interventions and may help to facilitate implementation in real-world clinical settings by tailoring intervention components to the needs of the population.

Evidence-informed health intervention planning that incorporates theoretical and empirical evidence and engages key stakeholders and community members or patients in the planning process results in interventions that are more effective. Nevertheless, exactly how and when to use evidence, theory, and community-based participation during planning represents a challenge. In this Perspective, we describe Intervention Mapping (IM), a framework for theory- and evidence-based health promotion program planning that addresses this challenge by providing a systematic and stepwise approach to planning interventions. IM has been used to develop health promotion interventions and implementation strategies in community and clinical settings globally, with over 1000 published articles employing the framework. In this Perspective, we also highlight recent and innovative applications of IM described in the articles of the Frontiers in Public Health Special Topic on IM. We conclude by discussing new directions in the application of IM including novel methods for identifying determinants of behavior and environmental conditions, the application of IM for planning implementation strategies, and IM for adaptation of evidence-based programs in new settings.

Background: The ultimate impact of a health innovation depends not only on its effectiveness but also on its reach in the population and the extent to which it is implemented with high levels of completeness and fidelity. Implementation science has emerged as the potential solution to the failure to translate evidence from research into effective practice and policy evident in many fields. Implementation scientists have developed many frameworks, theories and models, which describe implementation determinants, processes, or outcomes; yet, there is little guidance about how these can inform the development or selection of implementation strategies (methods or techniques used to improve adoption, implementation, sustainment, and scale-up of interventions) (1, 2). To move the implementation science field forward and to provide a practical tool to apply the knowledge in this field, we describe a systematic process for planning or selecting implementation strategies: Implementation Mapping.Methods: Implementation Mapping is based on Intervention Mapping (a six-step protocol that guides the design of multi-level health promotion interventions and implementation strategies) and expands on Intervention Mapping step 5. It includes insights from both the implementation science field and Intervention Mapping. Implementation Mapping involves five tasks: (1) conduct an implementation needs assessment and identify program adopters and implementers; (2) state adoption and implementation outcomes and performance objectives, identify determinants, and create matrices of change objectives; (3) choose theoretical methods (mechanisms of change) and select or design implementation strategies; (4) produce implementation protocols and materials; and (5) evaluate implementation outcomes. The tasks are iterative with the planner circling back to previous steps throughout this process to ensure all adopters and implementers, outcomes, determinants, and objectives are addressed.Discussion: Implementation Mapping provides a systematic process for developing strategies to improve the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of evidence-based interventions in real-world settings.

The field of implementation science was developed to better understand the factors that facilitate or impede implementation and generate evidence for implementation strategies. In this article, we briefly review progress in implementation science, and suggest five priorities for enhancing the impact of implementation strategies. Specifically, we suggest the need to: (1) enhance methods for designing and tailoring implementation strategies; (2) specify and test mechanisms of change; (3) conduct more effectiveness research on discrete, multi-faceted, and tailored implementation strategies; (4) increase economic evaluations of implementation strategies; and (5) improve the tracking and reporting of implementation strategies. We believe that pursuing these priorities will advance implementation science by helping us to understand when, where, why, and how implementation strategies improve implementation effectiveness and subsequent health outcomes.

Background: Although much work has begun to elucidate contextual factors influencing implementation, the specific processes that facilitate and hinder adoption, implementation, and maintenance of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in clinical settings remains poorly understood. Intervention Mapping (IM) is a systematic process that facilitates planning and design for dissemination, implementation and maintenance of EBIs in practice. IM has been used to guide the design of many health interventions, focusing on program implementation. Less studied is its use to adapt and scale screening interventions within the healthcare clinic setting. This paper describes the development of an implementation intervention using IM to facilitate the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of an EBI designed to increase mammography adherence in healthcare clinics, the adapted Peace of Mind Program (PMP).Methods: IM framework, Step 5, was used to guide the implementation intervention planning. IM guided identification of specific adoption, implementation, and maintenance performance objectives. We formed an implementation intervention planning group consisting of members of the academic team, our community partner and community health workers (CHWs) with substantial experience working on mammography screening programs in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and charity clinics.Results: Results are presented by Intervention Mapping task for Step 5 (Program Implementation Plan). We describe how the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) informed the selection of performance objectives, determinants, methods, and practical applications in the final implementation intervention.Conclusions: This paper provides an example of the use of Intervention Mapping Step 5 and CFIR to create an implementation intervention to support EBI scale up of an evidence-based mammography intervention within a specific setting.Clinical trials registration number: NCT02296177

Introduction: Effective interventions to increase HPV vaccination are needed to reach national vaccination goals and to reduce later HPV-related cancer disparities. We used Intervention Mapping (IM) to develop and adapt a theory- and evidence-based educational intervention targeting parents of Hispanic adolescents to increase HPV vaccination.Methods: We followed IM steps 1–6 to: (1) develop a logic model and identify modifiable factors associated with vaccination among Hispanic adolescents by conducting literature reviews, focus groups, and in-depth interviews with Hispanic parents; (2) develop outcomes, write performance objectives, and develop a matrix of change objectives; (3) develop and identify a program theme, program components, theoretical methods, and practical applications; (4) develop an intervention design plan; (5) develop implementation strategies; and (6) develop an evaluation plan. We completed Steps 1–6 for to develop an intervention targeting parents of females, and we followed the steps again to adapt the program once HPV vaccine recommendations included males.Results: The program Por Nuestras Hijas (For Our Daughters) included two components: a print fotonovela and a tailored interactive multimedia intervention (TIMI). The program utilized the methods tailoring, targeting, framing, anticipated regret, modeling, skill building, and education and counseling to target the following determinants: parental knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, skills, perceived benefits/barriers, perceived susceptibility, perceived norms, and outcome expectations as modifiable factors influencing HPV vaccination. Lay health workers implemented the program in community clinics. A logic model of change guided evaluation planning. We later adapted the outcome and intervention content for parents of Hispanic adolescent males and changed the theme to Por Nuestros Hijos (For Our Children). Throughout the development and adaptation processes, we relied on theory, empirical evidence, and new data to make decisions.Discussion: IM provided a systematic methodology for program development and adaptation. Tasks in each step built upon one another integrating findings from the literature, previous research, qualitative findings, and theory to develop two educational programs for parents to increase HPV vaccination. The systematic process allowed us to develop messages and materials targeting factors beyond HPV knowledge or awareness to create behavior change.

This paper describes a community coalition–university partnership to address health needs in an underserved US–Mexico border, community. For approximately 15 years, this coalition engaged in community-based participatory research with community organizations, state/local health departments, and the state’s only accredited college of public health. Notable efforts include the systematic collection of health-relevant data 12 years apart and data that spawned numerous health promotion activities. The latter includes specific evidence-based chronic disease-preventive interventions, including one that is now disseminated and replicated in Latino communities in the US and Mexico, and policy-level changes. Survey data to evaluate changes in a range of health problems and needs, with a specific focus on those related to diabetes and access to health-care issues—identified early on in the coalition as critical health problems affecting the community—are presented. Next steps for this community and lessons learned that may be applicable to other communities are discussed.

BackgroundDiabetes is considered one of the most prevalent and preventable chronic health conditions in the United States. Research has shown that evidence-based prevention measures and lifestyle changes can help lower the risk of developing diabetes. The National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) is an evidence-based program recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; it is designed to reduce diabetes risk through intensive group counseling in nutrition, physical activity, and behavioral management. Factors known to influence this program’s implementation, especially in primary care settings, have included limited awareness of the program, lack of standard clinical processes to facilitate referrals, and limited reimbursement incentives to support program delivery. A framework or approach that can address these and other barriers of practice is needed.ObjectiveWe used Implementation Mapping, a systematic planning framework, to plan for the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the National DPP in primary care clinics in the Greater Houston area. We followed the framework’s five iterative tasks to develop strategies that helped to increase awareness and adoption of the National DPP and facilitate program implementation.MethodsWe conducted a needs assessment survey and interviews with participating clinics. We identified clinic personnel who were responsible for program use, including adopters, implementers, maintainers, and potential facilitators and barriers to program implementation. The performance objectives, or sub-behaviors necessary to achieve each clinic’s goals, were identified for each stage of implementation. We used classic behavioral science theory and dissemination and implementation models and frameworks to identify the determinants of program adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Evidence- and theory-based methods were selected and operationalized into tailored strategies that were executed in the four participating clinic sites. Implementation outcomes are being measured by several different approaches. Electronic Health Records (EHR) will measure referral rates to the National DPP. Surveys will be used to assess the level of the clinic providers and staff’s acceptability, appropriateness of use, feasibility, and usefulness of the National DPP, and aggregate biometric data will measure the level of the clinic’s disease management of prediabetes and diabetes.ResultsParticipating clinics included a Federally Qualified Health Center, a rural health center, and two private practices. Most personnel, including the leadership at the four clinic sites, were not aware of the National DPP. Steps for planning implementation strategies included the development of performance objectives (implementation actions) and identifying psychosocial and contextual implementation determinants. Implementation strategies included provider-to-provider education, electronic health record optimization, and the development of implementation protocols and materials (e.g., clinic project plan, policies).ConclusionThe National DPP has been shown to help prevent or delay the development of diabetes among at-risk patients. Yet, there remain many challenges to program implementation. The Implementation Mapping framework helped to systematically identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to design strategies to address them. To further advance diabetes prevention, future program, and research efforts should examine and promote other strategies such as increased reimbursement or use of incentives and a better billing infrastructure to assist in the scale and spread of the National DPP across the U.S.

BackgroundDespite CDC recommendations for breast and cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination, cancer control behaviors are underutilized among low-income Latinas. Salud en Mis Manos (SEMM), adapted from Cultivando La Salud, is a community health worker- (CHW-) delivered evidence-based intervention (EBI), shown to increase breast and cervical cancer screening.MethodsWe used Implementation Mapping to create SEMM-Dissemination and Implementation Assistance (SEMM-DIA), a set of implementation strategies designed to support implementation and maintenance of SEMM in clinic settings. Specifically, we used Implementation Mapping's five iterative tasks to guide the use of theories and frameworks, evidence, new data, and stakeholder input to develop strategies to accelerate and improve implementation fidelity, reach, and maintenance of the SEMM intervention. The resulting implementation mapping logic model also guides the SEMM-DIA evaluation plan to assess reach, effectiveness, implementation, and maintenance.DiscussionIncreased use of implementation planning frameworks is necessary to accelerate the translation of EBIs to public health practice. This work demonstrates the application of Implementation Mapping to develop SEMM-DIA, providing a model for the development of other implementation strategies to support translation of evidence-based health promotion interventions into clinic settings.

BackgroundThe extent to which digital technologies are employed to promote the delivery of high-quality healthcare is known as Digital Maturity. Individual and systemic digital maturity are both necessary to ensure a successful, scalable and sustainable digital transformation in healthcare. However, digital maturity in primary care has been scarcely evaluated.ObjectivesThis study assessed the digital maturity in General Practice (GP) globally and evaluated its association with participants' demographic characteristics, practice characteristics and features of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) use.MethodsGPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June and September 2020. Demographic data, practice characteristics, and features of EHRs use were collected. Digital maturity was evaluated through a framework based on usage, resources and abilities (divided in this study in its collective and individual components), interoperability, general evaluation methods and impact of digital technologies. Each dimension was rated as 1 or 0. The digital maturity score was calculated as the sum of the six dimensions and ranged between 0 to 6 (maximum digital maturity). Multivariable linear regression was used to model the total score, while multivariable logistic regression was used to model the probability of meeting each dimension of the score.ResultsOne thousand six hundred GPs (61% female, 68% Europeans) participated. GPs had a median digital maturity of 4 (P25–P75: 3–5). Positive associations with digital maturity were found with: male gender [B = 0.18 (95% CI 0.01; 0.36)], use of EHRs for longer periods [B = 0.45 (95% CI 0.35; 0.54)] and higher frequencies of access to EHRs [B = 0.33 (95% CI 0.17; 0.48)]. Practicing in a rural setting was negatively associated with digital maturity [B = −0.25 (95%CI −0.43; −0.08)]. Usage (90%) was the most acknowledged dimension while interoperability (47%) and use of best practice general evaluation methods (28%) were the least. Shorter durations of EHRs use were negatively associated with all digital maturity dimensions (aOR from 0.09 to 0.77).ConclusionOur study demonstrated notable factors that impact digital maturity and exposed discrepancies in digital transformation across healthcare settings. It provides guidance for policymakers to develop more efficacious interventions to hasten the digital transformation of General Practice.