Forms and functions of bridging factors: specifying the dynamic links between outer and inner contexts during implementation and sustainment

Abstract

Background Bridging factors are relational ties, formal arrangements, and processes that connect outer system and inner organizational contexts. They may be critical drivers of evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation and sustainment. Yet, the complex interplay between outer and inner contexts is often not considered. Bridging factors were recently defined in the updated Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Further identification and specification of this construct will advance implementation models, measures, and methods. Our goal is to advance bridging factor research by identifying relevant dimensions and exemplifying these dimensions through illustrative case studies. Methods We used a multiple case study design. Each case (n = 10) represented different contexts, EBPs, and bridging factor types. Inclusion criteria were the presence of clearly distinguishable outer and inner contexts, identifiable bridging factor, sufficient information to describe how the bridging factor affected implementation, and variation from other cases. We used an iterative qualitative inquiry process to develop and refine a list of dimensions. Case data were entered into a matrix. Dimensions comprised the rows and case details comprised the columns. After a review of all cases, we collectively considered and independently coded each dimension as function or form. Results We drew upon the concepts of functions and forms, a distinction originally proposed in the complex health intervention literature. Function dimensions help define the bridging factor and illustrate its purpose as it relates to EBP implementation. Form dimensions describe the specific structures and activities that illustrate why and how the bridging factor has been customized to a local implementation experience. Function dimensions can help researchers and practitioners identify the presence and purpose of bridging factors, whereas form dimensions can help us understand how the bridging factor may be designed or modified to support EBP implementation in a specific context. We propose five function and three form bridging factor dimensions. Conclusions Bridging factors are described in many implementation models and studies, but without explicit reference or investigation. Bridging factors are an understudied and critical construct that requires further attention to facilitate implementation research and practice. We present specific recommendations for a bridging factors research agenda.

Using an online nominal group technique to determine key implementation factors for COVID-19 vaccination programmes in community pharmacies

“…It is interesting to note, “Staff training” can be considered as either an organisational or internal factor, if such training would be delivered within a pharmacy or pharmacy chain, or a system or external factor, if a professional organisation or national body were to develop and deliver such training [ 40 ]. Implementation science acknowledges the fluidity of constructs across contexts and that the interface between inner and outer setting is dynamic [ 41 ].…”

Launch of the Norwegian Network for Implementation Research (NIMP): Proceedings from the First Annual Conference

“…By connecting with other networks globally, we also can work toward mutually beneficial synergies across borders. Research networks may function as 'bridging factors' (Lengnick-Hall et al, 2021) that help interconnect implementation scholars within and across borders, as well as connect implementation science to practice, policy and other disciplines.…”

Implementation determinants and mechanisms for the prevention and treatment of adolescent HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: concept mapping of the NIH Fogarty International Center Adolescent HIV Implementation Science Alliance (AHISA) initiative

“…The EPIS framework has been used in multiple studies in sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., Nigeria, Kenya, Sierra Leone) [ 13 – 15 ]. The EPIS framework is particularly useful in this context due to its broad dimensions such as outer system context (e.g., sociopolitical constraints, ministries of health), inner context (e.g., service organizations such as non-governmental organizations), bridging factors (e.g., relational ties, formal arrangements, capital exchange, processes) that link outer and inner contexts [ 16 , 17 ], characteristics of practices to be implemented, and interorganizational relationships within and between outer and inner contexts [ 11 ]. As will be described in the “Methods” section, “bridging factors” in EPIS are distinct from “bridging values” in concept mapping (i.e., conceptual overlap in derived clusters) [ 18 , 19 ].…”