Planning for Implementation Success Using RE-AIM and CFIR Frameworks: A Qualitative Study

Diane K King, Jo Ann Shoup, Marsha A Raebel, Courtney B Anderson, Nicole M Wagner, Debra P Ritzwoller, Bruce G Bender, Diane K King, Jo Ann Shoup, Marsha A Raebel, Courtney B Anderson, Nicole M Wagner, Debra P Ritzwoller, Bruce G Bender

Abstract

Background: RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) and CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) dissemination and implementation frameworks define theory-based domains associated with the adoption, implementation and maintenance of evidence-based interventions. Used together, the two frameworks identify metrics for evaluating implementation success, i.e., high reach and effectiveness resulting in sustained practice change (RE-AIM), and modifiable factors that explain and enhance implementation outcomes (CFIR). We applied both frameworks to study the implementation planning process for a technology-delivered asthma care intervention called Breathewell within an integrated care organization. The goal of the Breathewell intervention is to increase the efficiency of delivering resource-intensive asthma care services. Methods: We reviewed historical documents (i.e., meeting agendas; minutes) from 14 months of planning to evaluate alignment of implementation team priorities with RE-AIM domains. Key content was extracted and analyzed on topics, frequency and amount of discussion within each RE-AIM domain. Implementation team members were interviewed using questions adapted from the CFIR Interview Guide Tool to focus their reflection on the process and contextual factors considered during pre-implementation planning. Documents and transcripts were initially coded using RE-AIM domain definitions, and recoded using CFIR constructs, with intent to help explain how team decisions and actions can contribute to adoption, implementation and maintenance outcomes. Results: Qualitative analysis of team documents and interviews demonstrated strong alignment with the RE-AIM domains: Reach, Effectiveness, and Implementation; and with the CFIR constructs: formal inclusion of provider and staff stakeholders in implementation planning, compatibility of the intervention with workflows and systems, and alignment of the intervention with organizational culture. Focus on these factors likely contributed to RE-AIM outcomes of high implementation fidelity. However, team members expressed low confidence that Breathewell would be adopted and maintained post-trial. A potential explanation was weak alignment with several CFIR constructs, including tension for change, relative priority, and leadership engagement that contribute to organizational receptivity and motivation to sustain change. Conclusions: While RE-AIM provides a practical framework for planning and evaluating practice change interventions to assure their external validity, CFIR explains why implementation succeeded or failed, and when used proactively, identifies relevant modifiable factors that can promote or undermine adoption, implementation, and maintenance.

Keywords: adoption; dissemination; frameworks; implementation; maintenance; sustainability.

Copyright © 2020 King, Shoup, Raebel, Anderson, Wagner, Ritzwoller and Bender.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Implementation planning conceptual framework: Using RE-AIM and CFIR to plan for successful implementation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Adoption, implementation, and maintenance outcomes, explained by weak, moderate, or strong alignment with CFIR constructs. CFIR constructs were grouped within “AIM” domains, based on theory and consensus, and were assigned points to indicate their relative emphasis during planning (weak = 1; moderate = 2; strong = 3). An average “score” was then calculated for the CFIR domains of Intervention Characteristics (Chars), Inner Setting, and Process to create the stacked columns in the figure. The AIM Outcomes line graph was generated based on methods recommended by Glasgow et al. (7) for weighting relative application of RE-AIM domains by scoring them as follows: 1–4 = low application, 5–6 = medium application, 7–8 = high application, and 9–10 = very high application of the framework.

References

    1. Huijg JM, Crone MR, Verheijden MW, van der Zouwe N, Middelkoop BJ, Gebhardt WA. Factors influencing the adoption, implementation, and continuation of physical activity interventions in primary health care: a Delphi study. BMC Fam Pract. (2013) 14:142. 10.1186/1471-2296-14-142
    1. King DK, Neander LL, Edwards AE, Barnett JD, Zold AL, Hanson BL. Fit and feasibility: adapting a standardized curriculum to prepare future health professionals to address alcohol misuse. Pedagogy Health Promot. (2019) 5:107–16. 10.1177/2373379918785924
    1. Dearing JW, Kreuter MW. Designing for diffusion: how can we increase uptake of cancer communication innovations? Patient Educ Couns. (2010) 81(Suppl):S100–10. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.10.013
    1. Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Green LW. Building capacity for evidence-based public health: reconciling the pulls of practice and the push of research. Annu Rev Public Health. (2018) 39:27–53. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014746
    1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. (1999) 89:1322–7. 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
    1. Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. (2013) 103:e38–46. 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301299
    1. Glasgow RE, Estabrooks PE. Pragmatic applications of RE-AIM for health care initiatives in community and clinical settings. Prev Chronic Dis. (2018) 15:E02. 10.5888/pcd15.170271
    1. RE-AIM, Website: (accessed June 1, 2019).
    1. Peek CJ, Glasgow RE, Stange KC, Klesges LM, Purcell EP, Kessler RS. The 5 R's: an emerging bold standard for conducting relevant research in a changing world. Ann Fam Med. (2014) 12:447–55. 10.1370/afm.1688
    1. King DK, Gonzalez SJ, Hartje JA, Hanson BL, Edney C, Snell H. Examining the sustainability potential of a multisite pilot to integrate alcohol screening and brief intervention within three primary care systems. Transl Behav Med. (2018) 8:776–84. 10.1093/tbm/ibx020
    1. Weiner BJ. A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implement Sci. (2009) 4:67. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
    1. Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. . RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. (2019) 7:64. 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064
    1. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A. Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Aff. (2001) 20:64–78. 10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.64
    1. Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model. (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. (2008) 34:228–43. 10.1016/S1553-7250(08)34030-6
    1. Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, Hooper DK, Linam WM, Froehle CM, et al. . The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. (2010) 88:500–59. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00611.x
    1. Holtrop JS, Rabin BA, Glasgow RE. Qualitative approaches to use of the RE-AIM framework: rationale and methods. BMC Health Serv Res. (2018) 18:177. 10.1186/s12913-018-2938-8
    1. Oh A, Gaysynsky A, Knott CL, Nock NL, Erwin DO, Vinson CA. Customer discovery as a tool for moving behavioral interventions into the marketplace: insights from the NCI SPRINT program. Transl Behav Med. (2019) 9:1139–50. 10.1093/tbm/ibz103
    1. Yano EM. The role of organizational research in implementing evidence-based practice: QUERI Series. Implement Sci. (2008) 3:29. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-29
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. (2009) 4:50. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
    1. Consolidated, framework for implementation research website: (accessed June 1, 2019).
    1. Breimaier HE, Heckemann B, Halfens RJ, Lohrmann C. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. (CFIR): a useful theoretical framework for guiding and evaluating a guideline implementation process in a hospital-based nursing practice. BMC Nurs. (2015) 14:43. 10.1186/s12912-015-0088-4
    1. Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, et al. . Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. (2017) 44:177–94. 10.1007/s11414-015-9475-6
    1. Raebel MA, Shetterly SM, Goodrich GK, Anderson CB, Shoup JA, Wagner N, et al. . Non-response to communication technology outreach for beta-agonist overuse in a pragmatic randomized trial of patients with asthma. J Gen Intern Med. (2018) 33:809–11. 10.1007/s11606-018-4395-9
    1. Bender BG, Wagner NM, Shoup JA, Goodrich GK, Shetterly SM, Cvietusa PJ, et al. Adults with asthma experience no increase in asthma related exacerbations when technology enabled communication tools are employed to offset clinician workload: a pragmatic randomized trial. Med Care. (2019). 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001265. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J. (2009) 9:27–40. 10.3316/QRJ0902027
    1. King DK, Glasgow RE, Leeman-Castillo BA. RE-AIMing RE-AIM: using the model to plan, implement, evaluate, and report the impact of environmental change approaches to enhance population health. Am J Public Health. (2010) 100:2076–84. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.190959
    1. Birken SA, Powell BJ, Presseau J, Kirk MA, Lorencatto F, Gould NJ, et al. . Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): a systematic review. Implement Sci. (2017) 12:2. 10.1186/s13012-016-0534-z
    1. Birken SA, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Haines ER, Alexis Kirk M, Leeman J, et al. . Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey. Implement Sci. (2017) 12:124. 10.1186/s13012-017-0656-y
    1. Birken SA, Rohweder CL, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Scott J, Leeman J, et al. . T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implement Sci. (2018) 13:143. 10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4
    1. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. (2015) 10:53. 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0
    1. Klesges LM, Estabrooks PA, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Glasgow RE. Beginning with the application in mind: designing and planning health behavior change interventions to enhance dissemination. Ann Behav Med. (2009) 29-S:66–75. 10.1207/s15324796abm2902s_10
    1. Keith RE, Crosson JC, O'Malley AS, Cromp D, Taylor EF: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to produce actionable findings: a rapid-cycle evaluation approach to improving implementation. Implement Sci. (2017) 12:15 10.1186/s13012-017-0550-7
    1. Bandura A. Self-efficacy. In: Ramachaudran VS, editor. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, Vol. 4. New York, NY: Academic Press; (1994). p. 71–81.
    1. Grol RP, Bosch MC, Hulscher ME, Eccles MP, Wensing M. Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. (2007) 85:93–138. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00478.x
    1. Kilbourne AM, Neumann MS, Pincus HA, Bauer MS, Stall R. Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care: application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implement Sci. (2007) 2:42. 10.1186/1748-5908-2-42
    1. Huynh AK, Hamilton AB, Farmer MM, Bean-Mayberry B, Stirman SW, Moin T, et al. . A pragmatic approach to guide implementation evaluation research: strategy mapping for complex interventions. Front Public Health. (2018) 6:134. 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00134
    1. Green LW, Ottoson JM, Garcia C, Hiatt RA. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. (2009) 30:151–74. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100049
    1. McCreight MS, Rabin BA, Glasgow RE, Ayele RA, Leonard CA, Gilmartin HM, et al. . Using the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model. (PRISM) to qualitatively assess multilevel contextual factors to help plan, implement, evaluate, and disseminate health services programs. Transl Behav Med. (2019) 9:1002–11. 10.1093/tbm/ibz085
    1. Calhoun A, Mainor A, Moreland-Russell S, Maier RC, Brossart L, Luke DA. Using the program sustainability assessment tool to assess and plan for sustainability. Prev Chronic Dis. (2014) 11:130185. 10.5888/pcd11.130185
    1. Luke DA, Calhoun A, Robichaux CB, Elliott MB, Moreland-Russell S. The program sustainability assessment tool: a new instrument for public health programs. Prev Chronic Dis. (2014) 11:130184. 10.5888/pcd11.130184
    1. Weiner BJ, Belden CM, Bergmire DM, Johnston M. The meaning and measurement of implementation climate. Implement Sci. (2011) 6:78. 10.1186/1748-5908-6-78
    1. Fernandez ME, Walker TJ, Weiner BJ, Calo WA, Liang S, Risendal B, et al. . Developing measures to assess constructs from the inner setting domain of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci. (2018) 13:52. 10.1186/s13012-018-0736-7
    1. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. . Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. (2011) 38:65–76. 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren