Search

Introduction Implementation Mapping (IM) has increasingly been used for the design and/or selection and tailoring implementation strategies to promote the effective translation of evidence-based interventions into practice. IM is a tool for guiding the systematic, iterative, step-by-step design process that helps guide the co-creation of theory-based, evidence-informed implementation strategies. This protocol aims to describe the methods of the planned systematic review that will (1) examine the overall landscape of IM in developing implementation strategies, (2) explore the mechanisms of implementation strategies developed using IM and (3) investigate the use of IM and community engagement in the development of implementation strategies. This review will produce synthesised evidence that will describe how IM has been used in selecting, designing and tailoring implementation strategies, with a focus on implementation mechanism and community engagement.Methods and analysis We will include peer-reviewed original English articles that describe the use of Implementation Mapping or Intervention Mapping to design implementation strategies. We will search Medline Ovid, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science using the following terms: ‘Implementation Mapping’ and ‘Intervention Mapping’. At least two reviewers will independently screen the records to examine the eligibility. After several rounds of consistency testing of data extraction among at least two reviewers and confirming the consistent coding among the reviewer team, one coder will proceed with the data extraction. In case of uncertainty, we will reach a consensus through interactive reviewers’ meetings and in consultation with a senior author. We examined the risk of bias in individual studies using the quality assessment tool developed by Hawker et al in 2002. We will synthesise and present the data by each research aim.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was not required. Findings will be shared via peer-reviewed journals, and data from the included studies will be made openly accessible.

Introduction As the US continues to battle the opioid epidemic, recovery residences remain valuable services for people in recovery. While there is a growing body of literature describing positive outcomes experienced by people who live in recovery residences, little is known about the experience of people who live in these residences while taking medications for an opioid use disorder (MOUD) as part of their recovery. Thus, this study has three aims: (1) expand the availability of recovery residences that meet the National Alliance for Recovery Residences standards in Texas and serve individuals taking medications for an opioid use disorder as part of their recovery; (2) evaluate recovery residences for people taking MOUD as part of their recovery; and (3) compare the cost-effectiveness of recovery residences to treatment-as-usual.Methods and analysis In collaboration with community partners, we opened 15 recovery residences in the State of Texas to house people taking MOUD as part of their recovery. We are collecting quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate outcomes at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, organisational and community levels. At the intrapersonal level, we are assessing changes in behavioural and psychosocial constructs using a longitudinal survey, objectively measuring current substance use with a point-of-interview breathalyser and urinalysis, and examining changes in healthcare utilisation using data obtained from a healthcare information exchange. We are collecting interpersonal data using in-depth individual interviews with residents and staff. We are collecting organisational data using field observation and a cost-effectiveness study, and we are collecting community data using neighbourhood mapping.Ethics and dissemination The UTHealth institutional review board approved all protocols. We will disseminate study findings via conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and brief community reports.