Applying concepts from “rapid” and “agile” implementation to advance implementation research

Quanbeck, Andrew; Garza, Rose Hennessy; Park, Linda

doi:10.1186/s43058-022-00366-3

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Especially pressing is understanding how implementation outcomes—particularly acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability—can advance equitable health service delivery. Testing hypothesized sequencing, impact, and efficiency of attaining implementation outcomes via strategies is essential to understanding and accelerating implementation processes [ 68 , 69 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Proctor and colleagues’ 2011 paper proposed a taxonomy of eight implementation outcomes and challenged the field to address a research agenda focused on conceptualization, measurement, and theory building. Ten years later, this paper maps the field’s progress in implementation outcomes research. This scoping review describes how each implementation outcome has been studied, research designs and methods used, and the contexts and settings represented in the current literature. We also describe the role of implementation outcomes in relation to implementation strategies and other outcomes. Methods Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for conducting scoping reviews guided our methods. Using forward citation tracing, we identified all literature citing the 2011 paper. We conducted our search in the Web of Science (WOS) database and added citation alerts sent to the first author from the publisher for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. This produced 1346 titles and abstracts. Initial abstract screening yielded 480 manuscripts, and full-text review yielded 400 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria (empirical assessment of at least one implementation outcome). Results Slightly more than half (52.1%) of included manuscripts examined acceptability. Fidelity (39.3%), feasibility (38.6%), adoption (26.5%), and appropriateness (21.8%) were also commonly examined. Penetration (16.0%), sustainability (15.8%), and cost (7.8%) were less frequently examined. Thirty-two manuscripts examined implementation outcomes not included in the original taxonomy. Most studies took place in healthcare (45.8%) or behavioral health (22.5%) organizations. Two-thirds used observational designs. We found little evidence of progress in testing the relationships between implementation strategies and implementation outcomes, leaving us ill-prepared to know how to achieve implementation success. Moreover, few studies tested the impact of implementation outcomes on other important outcome types, such as service systems and improved individual or population health. Conclusions Our review presents a comprehensive snapshot of the research questions being addressed by existing implementation outcomes literature and reveals the need for rigorous, analytic research and tests of strategies for attaining implementation outcomes in the next 10 years of outcomes research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study used a rapid qualitative approach 27–29 . The study was codesigned with L. J., a parent representative who is a parent caring for children with long‐term conditions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study used a rapid qualitative approach. [27][28][29] The study was codesigned with L. J., a parent representative who is a parent caring for children with long-term conditions. Codesign in this research study included L. J. being part of the research team and involved throughout the research process to ensure meaningful end-user engagement 30 and essential questions and priorities were addressed for this parent group.…”

Section: Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID‐19 in Western Australia: ‘The last straw’ and hopes for a ‘new normal’ for parents of children with long‐term conditions

Smith

Tallon

Smith

et al. 2023

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChildren with long‐term conditions are vulnerable due to the treatments required for their conditions. Since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, Western Australians experienced restrictions that changed daily life activities but were able to return to some of their previous routines due to the restrictions.AimThe study explored the stress experiences of parents caring for children with long‐term conditions during COVID‐19 in Western Australia.Design and ParticipantsThe study was codesigned with a parent representative caring for children with long‐term conditions to ensure essential questions were targeted. Twelve parents of children with various long‐term conditions were recruited. Ten parents completed the qualitative proforma, and two parents were interviewed in November 2020. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were anonymised and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.FindingsTwo themes were produced: (1) ‘Keep my child safe’ describes the children's vulnerabilities due to their long‐term conditions, the adjustments parents' made to keep their children safe and the various consequences faced. (2) ‘COVID‐19's silver lining’ covers the positives of the COVID‐19 pandemic, including their children having fewer infections, the availability of telehealth appointments, relationship improvements and the parent's hopes for a new normal where behaviours prevent transmission of infectious (e.g., hand sanitising).ConclusionWestern Australia provided a unique context for the COVID‐19 pandemic due to no transmission of the virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at the time of the study. The tend and befriend theory aids in explaining the parents' stress experiences, and the application highlights a unique aspect of this theory. Parents tended to their children during COVID‐19, but many could no longer rely on others for connection, support and respite, and became further isolated in attempting to protect their children due to COVID‐19 consequences. The findings highlight that some parents of children with long‐term conditions need specific attention during times of pandemics. Further review is recommended to support parents through the impact of COVID‐19 and similar crises.Patient or Public ContributionThis study was codesigned with an experienced parent representative who was part of the research team and involved throughout the research process to ensure meaningful end‐user engagement and ensure essential questions and priorities were addressed.

show abstract

“…Agile: Agile intervention development is a concept that originated in the field of software development but can be applied to healthcare intervention development ( 16 ). Agile development typically involves a rapid cycle of user-centred development in which evaluation of the user experience informs rapid optimisation.…”

Section: Overview Of the Ace Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Agile Co-production and Evaluation framework for developing public health interventions, messaging and guidance

Yardley

Denford

Kamal

et al. 2023

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A lesson identified from the COVID-19 pandemic is that we need to extend existing best practice for intervention development. In particular, we need to integrate (a) state-of-the-art methods of rapidly coproducing public health interventions and messaging to support all population groups to protect themselves and their communities with (b) methods of rapidly evaluating co-produced interventions to determine which are acceptable and effective. This paper describes the Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework, which is intended to provide a focus for investigating new ways of rapidly developing effective interventions and messaging by combining co-production methods with large-scale testing and/or real-world evaluation. We briefly review some of the participatory, qualitative and quantitative methods that could potentially be combined and propose a research agenda to further develop, refine and validate packages of methods in a variety of public health contexts to determine which combinations are feasible, cost-effective and achieve the goal of improving health and reducing health inequalities.

show abstract

Applying concepts from “rapid” and “agile” implementation to advance implementation research

Cited by 9 publications

References 51 publications

Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review

Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review

COVID‐19 in Western Australia: ‘The last straw’ and hopes for a ‘new normal’ for parents of children with long‐term conditions

The Agile Co-production and Evaluation framework for developing public health interventions, messaging and guidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About