Conceptualizing outcomes for use with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): the CFIR Outcomes Addendum

Laura J Damschroder, Caitlin M Reardon, Marilla A Opra Widerquist, Julie Lowery, Laura J Damschroder, Caitlin M Reardon, Marilla A Opra Widerquist, Julie Lowery

Abstract

Background: The challenges of implementing evidence-based innovations (EBIs) are widely recognized among practitioners and researchers. Context, broadly defined as everything outside the EBI, includes the dynamic and diverse array of forces working for or against implementation efforts. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is one of the most widely used frameworks to guide assessment of contextual determinants of implementation. The original 2009 article invited critique in recognition for the need for the framework to evolve. As implementation science has matured, gaps in the CFIR have been identified and updates are needed. Our team is developing the CFIR 2.0 based on a literature review and follow-up survey with authors. We propose an Outcomes Addendum to the CFIR to address recommendations from these sources to include outcomes in the framework.

Main text: We conducted a literature review and surveyed corresponding authors of included articles to identify recommendations for the CFIR. There were recommendations to add both implementation and innovation outcomes from these sources. Based on these recommendations, we make conceptual distinctions between (1) anticipated implementation outcomes and actual implementation outcomes, (2) implementation outcomes and innovation outcomes, and (3) CFIR-based implementation determinants and innovation determinants.

Conclusion: An Outcomes Addendum to the CFIR is proposed. Our goal is to offer clear conceptual distinctions between types of outcomes for use with the CFIR, and perhaps other determinant implementation frameworks as well. These distinctions can help bring clarity as researchers consider which outcomes are most appropriate to evaluate in their research. We hope that sharing this in advance will generate feedback and debate about the merits of our proposed addendum.

Keywords: Actual outcomes; Antecedent assessments; Anticipated outcomes; Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; Evaluation methods; Implementation framework; Implementation outcomes; Implementation science; Innovation outcomes; Theory.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CFIR Outcomes Addendum diagram

References

    1. McDonald KM. Considering context in quality improvement interventions and implementation: concepts, frameworks, and application. Acad Pediatr. 2013;13:S45–S53. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2013.04.013.
    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;4:1–15. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Fernandez ME, Ten Hoor GA, van Lieshout S, Rodriguez SA, Beidas RS, Parcel G, et al. Implementation mapping: using intervention mapping to develop implementation strategies. Front Public Health. 2019;7:158. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00158.
    1. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.
    1. Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43:337–350. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024.
    1. Stirman SW, Baumann AA, Miller CJ. The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci. 2019;14:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6.
    1. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Fernández ME, Abadie B, Damschroder LJ. Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions. Implement Sci. 2019;14:1–15. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0892-4.
    1. Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2015;11:72. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Sperber N, Robinson CH, Fickel JJ, Oddone EZ. Implementation evaluation of the Telephone Lifestyle Coaching (TLC) program: organizational factors associated with successful implementation. Behav Med Pract Policy Res. 2017;7:233–241. doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0424-6.
    1. Skolarus TA, Lehmann T, Tabak RG, Harris J, Lecy J, Sales AE. Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks. Implement Sci. 2017;12:97. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0628-2.
    1. Whitaker RG, Sperber N, Baumgartner M, Thiem A, Cragun D, Damschroder L, et al. Coincidence analysis: a new method for causal inference in implementation science. Implement Sci. 2020;15:108. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01070-3.
    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. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064.
    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. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
    1. Hung D, Gray C, Martinez M, Schmittdiel J, Harrison MI. Acceptance of lean redesigns in primary care: a contextual analysis. Health Care Manage Rev. 2017;42:203–212. doi: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000106.
    1. Ashok M, Hung D, Rojas-Smith L, Halpern MT, Harrison M. Framework for research on implementation of process redesigns. Qual Manag Health Care. 2018;27:17–23. doi: 10.1097/QMH.0000000000000158.
    1. Dy SM, Ashok M, Wines RC, Rojas Smith L. A framework to guide implementation research for care transitions interventions. J Healthc Qual. 2015;37:41–54. doi: 10.1097/01.JHQ.0000460121.06309.f9.
    1. Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Van Lente H. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2006;18:285–298. doi: 10.1080/09537320600777002.
    1. Ilott I, Gerrish K, Booth A, Field B. Testing the consolidated framework for implementation research on health care innovations from South Yorkshire: testing the CFIR on health care innovations. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01876.x.
    1. Tinc PJ, Gadomski A, Sorensen JA, Weinehall L, Jenkins P, Lindvall K. Applying the Consolidated Framework for implementation research to agricultural safety and health: barriers, facilitators, and evaluation opportunities. Saf Sci. 2018;107:99–108. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.04.008.
    1. Serhal E, Arena A, Sockalingam S, Mohri L, Crawford A. Adapting the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to create organizational readiness and implementation tools for project ECHO. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2018;38:145–151. doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000195.
    1. Ament SMC, Gillissen F, Moser A, Maessen JMC, Dirksen CD, von Meyenfeldt MF, et al. Factors associated with sustainability of 2 quality improvement programs after achieving early implementation success. A qualitative case study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:1135–1143. doi: 10.1111/jep.12735.
    1. Callaghan-Koru JA, Islam M, Khan M, Sowe A, Islam J, Mannan II, et al. Factors that influence the scale up of new interventions in low-income settings: a qualitative case study of the introduction of chlorhexidine cleansing of the umbilical cord in Bangladesh. Health Policy Plann. 2020;35:440–451. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz156.
    1. Hill JN, Locatelli SM, Bokhour BG, Fix GM, Solomon J, Mueller N, et al. Evaluating broad-scale system change using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: challenges and strategies to overcome them. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11:560. doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-3650-9.
    1. Morgan D, Kosteniuk J, O’Connell ME, Kirk A, Stewart NJ, Seitz D, et al. Barriers and facilitators to development and implementation of a rural primary health care intervention for dementia: a process evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:709. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4548-5.
    1. Vidgen HA, Love PV, Wutzke SE, Daniels LA, Rissel CE, Innes-Hughes C, et al. A description of health care system factors in the implementation of universal weight management services for children with overweight or obesity: case studies from Queensland and New South Wales, Australia. Implement Sci. 2018;13:109. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0801-2.
    1. Breimaier HE, Heckemann B, Halfens RJG, 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. doi: 10.1186/s12912-015-0088-4.
    1. Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12:108. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3.
    1. Reilly KL, Kennedy S, Porter G, Estabrooks P. Comparing, contrasting, and integrating dissemination and implementation outcomes included in the RE-AIM and implementation outcomes frameworks. Front Public Health. 2020;8:430. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00430.
    1. Weiner BJ, Mettert KD, Dorsey CN, Nolen EA, Stanick C, Powell BJ, et al. Measuring readiness for implementation: a systematic review of measures’ psychometric and pragmatic properties. Implement Res Pract. 2020;1:263348952093389. doi: 10.1177/2633489520933896.
    1. Miake-Lye IM, Delevan DM, Ganz DA, Mittman BS, Finley EP. Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:106. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-4926-z.
    1. Weiner BJ, Belden CM, Bergmire DM, Johnston M. The meaning and measurement of implementation climate. Implement Sci. 2011;6:78. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-78.
    1. Glasgow RE. Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Educ Res. 2006;21:688–694. doi: 10.1093/her/cyl081.
    1. Abildso CG, Zizzi SJ, Reger-Nash B. Evaluating an insurance-sponsored weight management program with the RE-AIM Model, West Virginia, 2004-2008. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010;7:A46.
    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;34:228–243. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(08)34030-6.
    1. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff. 2008;27:759–769. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759.
    1. Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12:573–576. doi: 10.1370/afm.1713.
    1. Jackson GL, Damschroder LJ, White BS, Henderson B, Vega RJ, Kilbourne AM, et al. Balancing reality in embedded research and evaluation: low vs high embeddedness. Learn Health Sys. 2021. 10.1002/lrh2.10294.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Knighton AJ, Griese E, Greene SM, Lozano P, Kilbourne AM, et al. Recommendations for strengthening the role of embedded researchers to accelerate implementation in health systems: findings from a state-of-the-art (SOTA) conference workgroup. Healthcare. 2021;8:100455. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100455.
    1. Lennox L, Maher L, Reed J. Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2018;13:27. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0707-4.
    1. Scheirer MA, Dearing JW. An agenda for research on the sustainability of public health programs. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:2059–2067. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300193.
    1. Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of chaos: use of theory in implementation research. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283:112461. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.036.
    1. Dobson D, Cook TJ. Avoiding type III error in program evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 1980;3:269–276. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(80)90042-7.
    1. Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013;8:117. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-117.
    1. Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5. New York: Free Press; 2003.
    1. Curran GM. Implementation science made too simple: a teaching tool. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1:27. doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00001-z.
    1. Petit-McClure SH, Stinson C. Disrupting dis/abilization: a critical exploration of research methods to combat white supremacy and ableism in education. Intersect Cri Issues Educ. 2019;3:4.
    1. Hall BL, Tandon R. Decolonization of knowledge, epistemicide, participatory research and higher education. Res All. 2017;1:6–19. doi: 10.18546/RFA.01.1.02.
    1. Althaus C. Different paradigms of evidence and knowledge: recognising, honouring, and celebrating Indigenous ways of knowing and being. Aust J Public Adm. 2020;79:187–207. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12400.
    1. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50:217–226. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.
    1. Orlando LA, Sperber NR, Voils C, Nichols M, Myers RA, Wu RR, et al. Developing a common framework for evaluating the implementation of genomic medicine interventions in clinical care: the IGNITE Network’s Common Measures Working Group. Genet Med. 2018;20:655–663. doi: 10.1038/gim.2017.144.
    1. Lyon AR, Whitaker K, Locke J, Cook CR, King KM, Duong M, et al. The impact of inter-organizational alignment (IOA) on implementation outcomes: evaluating unique and shared organizational influences in education sector mental health. Implement Sci. 2018;13:24. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0721-1.
    1. Dopp AR, Parisi KE, Munson SA, Lyon AR. Integrating implementation and user-centred design strategies to enhance the impact of health services: protocol from a concept mapping study. Health Res Policy Sys. 2019;17:1. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0403-0.
    1. Trofino J. Power sharing. A transformational strategy for nurse retention, effectiveness, and extra effort. Nurs Leadersh Forum. 2003;8:64–71.
    1. Lutes LD, DiNatale E, Goodrich DE, Ronis DL, Gillon L, Kirsh S, et al. A randomized trial of a small changes approach for weight loss in veterans: design, rationale, and baseline characteristics of the ASPIRE-VA trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34:161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.09.007.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Lutes LD, Kirsh S, Kim HM, Gillon L, Holleman RG, et al. Small-changes obesity treatment among veterans. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47:541–553. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.06.016.
    1. Masheb RM, Lutes LD, Kim HM, Holleman RG, Goodrich DE, Janney CA, et al. Weight loss outcomes in patients with pain: weight loss and pain. Obesity. 2015;23:1778–1784. doi: 10.1002/oby.21160.
    1. Masheb RM, Lutes LD, Myra Kim H, Holleman RG, Goodrich DE, Janney CA, et al. High-frequency binge eating predicts weight gain among veterans receiving behavioral weight loss treatments: high-frequency binge eating and weight gain. Obesity. 2015;23:54–61. doi: 10.1002/oby.20931.
    1. Vimalananda V, Damschroder L, Janney CA, Goodrich D, Kim HM, Holleman R, et al. Weight loss among women and men in the ASPIRE-VA behavioral weight loss intervention trial: sex-specific weight loss results in ASPIRE-VA. Obesity. 2016;24:1884–1891. doi: 10.1002/oby.21574.
    1. Janney CA, Masheb RM, Lutes LD, Holleman RG, Kim HM, Gillon LR, et al. Mental health and behavioral weight loss: 24-month outcomes in Veterans. J Affect Disord. 2017;215:197–204. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.03.003.
    1. Kislov R, Pope C, Martin GP, Wilson PM. Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implement Sci. 2019;14:103. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0957-4.
    1. Glasgow RE, Estabrooks PA, Ory MG. Characterizing evolving frameworks: issues from Esmail et al. (2020) review. Implement Sci. 2020;15:53. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01009-8.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다