En Route to Implementation Science 3.0

Albers, Bianca; Shlonsky, Aron; Mildon, Robyn

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03874-8_1

Cited by 28 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 263 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But it is increasingly recognized that there is much to be done to advance the field into 'praxis' (informed, committed action), which some implementation scientists have recently dubbed "Implementation Science 3.0. " 6,7 Our article advances the current debate by drawing attention to how the 'art and craft' of the industrial sector will contribute practicable lessons to building the discipline of implementation in global health beyond current 'scientific' methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the Science: Advancing the "Art and Craft" of Implementation in the Training and Practice of Global Health

Eboreime

Banke-Thomas

2020

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interesting debates are ongoing on how to develop practical implementation science competencies that can bridge the "know-do" gap in global health. We advance these debates by arguing that apprenticeship and mentorship models drawn from "art and craft" used in industry is the missing piece of the puzzle that will bridge the persisting gap between academics and real-world practitioners. We propose examples of such models and how they can be applied to improve existing capacity building programs, as well as implementation in practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the Science: Advancing the "Art and Craft" of Implementation in the Training and Practice of Global Health

Eboreime

Banke-Thomas

2020

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Implementation research in healthcare settings has identified numerous factors that delay the translation of evidence‐based practices into standard clinical services, which map on to different components of the dissemination and implementation pipeline (e.g., Albers et al, 2020; Glasziou & Haynes, 2005; White, 2018). As models and frameworks such as the “funnel of attrition” (Albers et al, 2020) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR; Damschroder et al, 2009; Damschroder, 2020) indicate, challenges with adoption and dissemination of new treatments result from a lack of awareness of new treatments and/or lack of access to technical training on the interventions. Even after initial adoption occurs, several factors can limit uptake and lead to rapid attrition of usage, including fit with providers' primary, day‐to‐day responsibilities and goals, organizational and supervisor support, and logistical demands associated with intervention delivery (Albers et al, 2020; Damschroder, 2020; Dingfelder & Mandell, 2011; Proctor et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the field looks toward accelerating the dissemination and implementation of NDBIs, it is imperative to consider which “real‐world” systems are best poised for successful uptake and for having a meaningful impact on system‐level and family‐level outcomes of interest. Two of those considerations should be whether a system has the: (a) trifecta of fit between the intervention characteristics (e.g., complexity, effectiveness), provider goals, and the needs of their patients/clients (Albers et al, 2020; Haynes et al, 2002); and (b) capacity to scale implementation to reduce the staggering delays that exist for accessing early ASD‐specialized intervention (Carbone et al, 2013; Ibañez et al, 2019; Tomlin et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The implementation of reciprocal imitation training in a Part C early intervention setting: A stepped‐wedge pragmatic trial

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the development of several evidence‐based Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions (NDBIs), very few have been adapted for use in community‐based settings. This study examines the implementation of Reciprocal Imitation Training (RIT)—an NDBI—by community Early Intervention (EI; IDEA Part C) providers serving toddlers from birth to 3 years. Of the 87 EI providers enrolled from 9 agencies in 4 counties across Washington State, 66 were included in the current sample. A stepped‐wedge design was used to randomly assign counties to the timing of RIT training workshops. Self‐report measures of practice and self‐efficacy regarding ASD care were collected at baseline (T1, T2) and 6‐months and 12‐months post‐training (T3, T4). At T3 and T4, providers reported on RIT adoption and rated items about RIT feasibility and perceived RIT effectiveness; at T4, they also reported on child characteristics that led to RIT use and modifications. From pre‐training to post‐training, there were significant increases in providers' self‐efficacy in providing services to children with ASD or suspected ASD. At T3 and T4, provider ratings indicated high levels of RIT adoption, feasibility, and perceived RIT effectiveness. At T4, providers indicated that they most commonly: (a) initiated RIT when there were social‐communication or motor imitation delays, or an ASD diagnosis; and (b) made modifications to RIT by repeating elements, blending it with other therapies, and loosening its structure. While additional research is needed, RIT may help families get an early start on accessing specialized treatment within an established infrastructure available across the United States. Lay Summary Reciprocal imitation training (RIT) is an evidence‐based treatment for ASD that might be a good fit for use by intervention providers in widely accessible community‐based settings. After attending an educational workshop on RIT, providers reported feeling more comfortable providing services to families with ASD concerns, used RIT with over 400 families, and believed that RIT improved important social communication behaviors.

show abstract

“…However, translating best practice into routine practice remains a challenge despite clear public health benefits for families (KPMG, 2016). The lag in putting evidence to practice can be years, if not decades, and is also found in other health and child welfare systems (Albers, Shlonsky, & Mildon, 2020; Lyon, Comtois, Kerns, Landes, & Lewis, 2020; Sisk, Mozersky, Antes, & DuBois, 2020). Research shows this lag is reduced through effective leadership, supportive policy, well‐designed change management strategies, and multidisciplinary collaboration (Lewis & Dorsey, 2020; Lyon et al, 2020; Sisk et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Practicing Best Practice: A 10‐Year Retrospective on Universal Risk Screening in a Mediation and Counseling Organization

Lee¹,

Ralfs²,

Booth³

et al. 2021

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Separation is a high‐risk time in families and for many it marks the onset or escalation of family safety and wellbeing risks like Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Best practice for identifying such risks in court or community mediation services is systematic inquiry about safety risks with structured tools to overcome under‐reporting of risks. However, turning best practice recommendations into routine practice can take years – even when the evidence is strong that practitioners and their clients will ultimately benefit. Relationships Australia South Australia has addressed this evidence‐practice gap by engaging our leadership and undertaking whole‐of‐organization implementation of the Family DOORS framework. This includes the validated screening tool DOOR 1, that helps practitioners identify and respond to family‐wide risks during peak stress such as separation. In this article, we review our 10‐year implementation journey towards best practice in risk screening, reporting on 28,097 screens completed with clients to date. We describe the initiatives used to address practitioner and infrastructure barriers to implementation. We present both quantitative and qualitative indicators of practitioner change along with client survey data (n = 1,291), demonstrating changes in practices that have enhanced client engagement and led to an increase in client safety and wellbeing outcomes. We share recommendations for and innovations in translation to other service contexts. We hope that using the following recommendations and adopting the DOORS tools will encourage and enable others to implement best practice risk screening in far less than 10 years.

show abstract

En Route to Implementation Science 3.0

Cited by 28 publications

References 263 publications

Beyond the Science: Advancing the "Art and Craft" of Implementation in the Training and Practice of Global Health

Beyond the Science: Advancing the "Art and Craft" of Implementation in the Training and Practice of Global Health

The implementation of reciprocal imitation training in a Part C early intervention setting: A stepped‐wedge pragmatic trial

Practicing Best Practice: A 10‐Year Retrospective on Universal Risk Screening in a Mediation and Counseling Organization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About