Developing a Field of Study in Implementation Science for the Africa Region: The Wits–UNC AIDS Implementation Science Fogarty D43

Ramaswamy, Rohit; Chirwa, Tobias; Salisbury, Kathryn; Ncayiyana, Jabulani; Ibisomi, Latifat; Rispel, Laetitia C.; Horst, Charles van der; Pettifor, Audrey

doi:10.1177/2373379919897088

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies that targeted researchers, practitioners, and practitioners-in-training were conducted in the USA [ 25 – 27 ], Canada [ 28 , 30 ], South Africa [ 29 ], and Sweden [ 23 ], and jointly across the USA, Mexico, and India [ 24 ]. Each intervention consisted of a combination of core components with the most common interventions including didactic activities, mentorship and expert consultations, knowledge sharing activities, and practical application activities.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One global model of mentorship consisted of implementation faculty who provided training to field mentors. As part of this model, public health students and practitioners then completed implementation projects related to HIV/AIDS research in South Africa and received routine mentorship from their trained field mentors with a focus on implementation determinants, strategies, and outcomes [ 29 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Leveraging academic initiatives to advance implementation practice: a scoping review of capacity building interventions

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Academic institutions building capacity for implementation scholarship are also well positioned to build capacity in real world health and human service settings. How practitioners and policy makers are included and trained in implementation capacity-building initiatives, and their impact on building implementation practice capacity is unclear. This scoping review identified and examined features of interventions that build implementation practice capacity across researchers and practitioners or practitioners-in-training. Methods Five bibliographic databases were searched. Eligible studies (a) described an implementation capacity building intervention with a connection to an academic institution, (b) targeted researchers and practitioners (including practitioners-in-training, students, or educators), and (c) reported intervention or participant outcomes. Articles that only described capacity building interventions without reporting outcomes were excluded. Consistent with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, key study characteristics were extracted (target participants, core components, and outcomes) and analyzed using open coding and numerical analysis. Results Of 1349 studies identified, 64 met eligibility for full-text review, and 14 were included in the final analysis. Half of the studies described implementation capacity building interventions that targeted health or behavioral health researchers, practitioners, and practitioners-in-training together, and half targeted practitioners or practitioners-in-training only. The most common components included structured didactic activities offered in person or online, mentorship and expert consultation to support implementation, and practical application activities (e.g., field placements, case studies). Knowledge sharing activities and technical assistance were less common. All studies reported favorable outcomes related to knowledge attainment, increased ability to implement evidence, productivity, and satisfaction. Conclusions Building implementation capacity among practitioners is critical for integrating insights from implementation science into the field and preventing the “secondary” implementation research-to-practice gap. This scoping review identified several promising implementation practice capacity building interventions that tend to build practitioner capacity via expert led activities which may be relevant for academic institutions seeking to build implementation practice capacity. To avoid widening the implementation research-to-practice gap, implementation capacity building interventions are needed that target policy makers, expand beyond multiple practice settings, and leverage university/community partnerships or on-site academic medical centers. Future studies will also be needed to test the impact on service quality and public health outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveraging academic initiatives to advance implementation practice: a scoping review of capacity building interventions

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… Politician, political leaders “The roles of politicians have been identified as mobilization of communities, dissemination of evidence, and advocacy. However, politicians may face several challenges, including the pressure to respond to their constituencies and political ideological agendas that may influence how they deal with the available evidence [ 3 , 10 ]” [ 20 ]. Policy maker/senior government official Responsible for formulating policy to support implementation of EBPs but do not have political power.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acknowledging this interest, the journal Implementation Science [ 1 ] solicited manuscripts describing training and curricula. Over the past few years, several articles have been published detailing training programs in the field, including two by some of the authors of this paper [ 2 , 3 ]. A recent systematic review by Davis and D’Lima identified 41 capacity building initiatives (CBIs) in eight countries [ 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations

Turner

Bogdewic

Agha

et al. 2021

Implement Sci Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite significant progress in the field of implementation science (IS), current training programs are inadequate to meet the global need, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Even when training opportunities exist, there is a “knowledge-practice gap,” where implementation research findings are not useful to practitioners in a field designed to bridge that gap. This is a critical challenge in LMICs where complex public health issues must be addressed. This paper describes results from a formal assessment of learning needs, priority topics, and delivery methods for LMIC stakeholders. Methods We first reviewed a sample of articles published recently in Implementation Science to identify IS stakeholders and assigned labels and definitions for groups with similar roles. We then employed a multi-step sampling approach and a random sampling strategy to recruit participants (n = 39) for a semi-structured interview that lasted 30–60 min. Stakeholders with inputs critical to developing training curricula were prioritized and selected for interviews. We created memos from audio-recorded interviews and used a deductively created codebook to conduct thematic analysis. We calculated kappa coefficients for each memo and used validation techniques to establish rigor including incorporating feedback from reviewers and member checking. Results Participants included program managers, researchers, and physicians working in over 20 countries, primarily LMICs. The majority had over 10 years of implementation experience but fewer than 5 years of IS experience. Three main themes emerged from the data, pertaining to past experience with IS, future IS training needs, and contextual issues. Most respondents (even with formal training) described their IS knowledge as basic or minimal. Preferences for future training were heterogeneous, but findings suggest that curricula must encompass a broader set of competencies than just IS, include mentorship/apprenticeship, and center the LMIC context. Conclusion While this work is the first systematic assessment of IS learning needs among LMIC stakeholders, findings reflect existing research in that current training opportunities may not meet the demand, trainings are too narrowly focused to meet the heterogeneous needs of stakeholders, and there is a need for a broader set of competencies that moves beyond only IS. Our research also demonstrates the timely and unique needs of developing appropriately scoped, accessible training and mentorship support within LMIC settings. Therefore, we propose the novel approach of intelligent swarming as a solution to help build IS capacity in LMICs through the lens of sustainability and equity.

show abstract

“…Post-COVID approaches to safety and quality Educational resources and activities can be shared globally, especially in areas not previously exposed to improvement science. 22 Case study 4 demonstrates examples of capacity building in LMICs. 23,24 Lesson 5: Ensure the safety of patients and healthcare workers with respect and kindness…”

Section: Case Study 3 Learning and Developing Preparedness Approaches From Periods Of Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons post-COVID from national and international approaches to safety and quality in healthcare

O’Brien

Durkin²,

Lachman

2021

Future Healthcare Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge as well as an opportunity for healthcare. The pandemic has exposed the inherent weaknesses in health systems globally while, at the same time, revealing strengths on which post-pandemic health systems can be built. We propose lessons on improving quality and safety post-pandemic from a global perspective based on recent policy publications and our global experience. Nine possible lessons are discussed. These lessons can ensure that healthcare does not return to the old normal, but rather builds on what we have learnt as we deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals and universal health coverage. Quality and safety are an essential component of healthcare strategy. Postpandemic systems require a transparent compassionate culture, with integration of care at its core. The workforce must be trained in the skills to improve care, and patient and healthcare worker protection (both physically and psychologically) needs to be a given. Any development of systems will best be coproduced with the people who receive and deliver care in an equal partnership. Finally, the new systems need to be conscious of emerging threats (such as the challenge of climate change), building sustainable health systems that also address the structural inequities that currently exist.

show abstract

Developing a Field of Study in Implementation Science for the Africa Region: The Wits–UNC AIDS Implementation Science Fogarty D43

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Leveraging academic initiatives to advance implementation practice: a scoping review of capacity building interventions

Leveraging academic initiatives to advance implementation practice: a scoping review of capacity building interventions

Learning needs assessment for multi-stakeholder implementation science training in LMIC settings: findings and recommendations

Lessons post-COVID from national and international approaches to safety and quality in healthcare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About