Background The translation of research findings into practice can be improved to maximize benefits more quickly and with greater flexibility. To expedite translation, researchers have developed innovative approaches to implementation branded as “rapid” and “agile” implementation. Rapid implementation has roots in precision medicine and agile implementation has roots in systems engineering and software design. Research has shown that innovation often derives from learning and applying ideas that have impacted other fields. Implications for implementation researchers This commentary examines “rapid” and “agile” approaches to implementation and provides recommendations to implementation researchers stemming from these approaches. Four key ideas are synthesized that may be broadly applicable to implementation research, including (1) adopting a problem orientation, (2) applying lessons from behavioral economics, (3) using adaptive study designs and adaptive interventions, and (4) using multi-level models to guide implementation. Examples are highlighted from the field where researchers are applying these key ideas to illustrate their potential impact. Conclusions “Rapid” and “agile” implementation approaches to implementation stem from diverse fields. Elements of these approaches show potential for advancing implementation research, although adopting them may entail shifting scientific norms in the field.

(1) Background: African American women breast cancer survivors face unique experiences that impact their quality of life as they transition beyond treatments. Experiences may be complicated by living at the intersection of systemically oppressed identities, including gender, race, social class, and cancer-related disability. Using the Black Feminist Thought (BFT) framework and the PEN-3 cultural model, this qualitative study sought to: (a) understand African American women breast cancer survivors’ lived experiences; (b) examine how the multiple intersecting factors of race, gender, social class/socioeconomic status, and cancer-related disability impact their quality of life; and (c) inform future health promotion programming that is culturally relevant to AAWBCS to improve their quality of life. (2) Methods: Seven focus groups were conducted with 30 African American breast cancer survivors in a Midwestern metropolitan region. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Framework analyses were conducted to identify themes with NVivo qualitative analysis software. (3) Results: Four themes emerged: (a) caregiving roles provide both support and challenges for survivors, (b) the “strong Black woman” is inherent in survivor experiences, (c) intersectionality impacts survivorship, and (d) African American women resist oppression through culturally specific supports and advocacy. (4) Conclusions: The intervention point of entry should be at the peer support group level and centered on family and provide community-based support and services. Future research should move upstream to address social determinants of health, including racism, sexism, and ableism; there is a critical need to discuss how structural racism affects health care and develop interventions to address racial discrimination and racial bias in health care.

Few bystander intervention trainings programs have evaluated behavioral outcomes in previously trained upper-level undergraduate students. Rigorous study designs are necessary to understand how multi-topic programs influence student outcomes to intervene against sexual violence, racism, and high-risk alcohol situations. A single-session bystander training for emphasizing communication strategies was developed for juniors and seniors on a private, Midwestern college campus. The training addressed sexual violence, racism, and high-risk alcohol situations and was evaluated using a randomized waitlist-control design in student-housing units. Online Qualtrics surveys were completed by 101 student participants (57 in the intervention group and 44 in the control group). Students responded to nine harm scenarios involving sexual violence, racism, and high-risk alcohol situations at baseline and 7 weeks follow-up. Between-group changes in scores were compared to determine the effect of the program on students’ (a) readiness to intervene; (b) confidence to intervene; (c) bystander behaviors among students who witnessed actual or potentially harmful events; and (d) bystander reports of their experiences. Qualitative analysis assessed how the program influenced the use of positive verbal communication strategies. Program effects increased positive bystander experiences when helping someone who had too much to drink and needed assistance. Over time both groups reported increased confidence levels to intervene when someone intoxicated was being isolated with sexual intent. There were no further significant findings in readiness, confidence, behaviors, or other experiences, though some positive nonsignificant trends emerged. The program demonstrated little efficacy. Results suggest opportunities to improve bystander outcomes in low-risk primary prevention situations and racist scenarios, suggesting that targeted intervention of these outcomes may be useful when developing programming with previously-trained students. As universities expand prevention work beyond the first year, lessons learned may help inform multi-year programming across health topics to prevent harm and create healthier college campuses.

No abstract