Implementing Health Apps for Digital Public Health – An Implementation Science Approach Adopting the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Abstract

Apps are becoming an increasingly important component of modern Public Health and health care. However, successful implementation of apps does not come without challenges. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) provides a central typology to support the development of implementation theories and the examination of what works where and why in different contexts. The framework offers a reasonable structure for managing complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world: It draws on constructs from other implementation theories and might be used to conduct formative evaluations or build a common body of knowledge for implementation thru various studies and settings. In a synthesis of the original English language text describing the CFIR, an attempt was made to break the constructs down into the shortest possible concise descriptions for the implementation of health care apps in a structured, selective process. The listed key constructs should help to develop successful implementation plans and models for health apps and show the complexity of a successful implementation. As a perspective article, the aim of the current piece is to present a viewpoint on using the CFIR as a potential support for implementing health apps.

What are Digital Public Health Interventions? First Steps Toward a Definition and an Intervention Classification Framework

“…The first step toward a potential intervention classification framework was developed based on this definition and its underlying frameworks ( Multimedia Appendix 1 ). The aim of this framework is three-fold: (1) support the future reporting of digital public health intervention functions and effectiveness by providing a framework for classification, (2) identify future requirements (eg, for evaluation) of such interventions, and (3) support the implementation processes of digital public health interventions by linking implementation needs and characteristics with the classification framework (ie, a digital public health intervention addressing active monitoring in health care with high levels of user involvement might have other implementation needs than a digital public health intervention that addresses simple monitoring in health care with low levels of user involvement) [ 36 ]. We view a combination of all 3 models as a chance to set up a first definition and classification for digital public health interventions and hope that our approach will encourage the uptake and further development of our idea.…”

Preferences in the Intention to Download a COVID Tracing App: A Discrete Choice Experiment Study in the Netherlands and Turkey

“…High levels of adoption and usage of the CTA's among populations worldwide is a stipulated prerequisite for the success of the implementation of these apps to mitigate the pandemic and track spreading of the virus more efficiently and (cost-)effectively (Wienert and Zeeb, 2021). In the current study, we investigated several individuals' preferences in the intention to download of a CTA in a pilot study in both the Netherlands and Turkey.…”

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of cell phone interventions to improve the use of family planning services among women in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review

“…Published by Sciedu Press the authors coded each facilitator and barrier according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a conceptual framework created to guide the systematic assessment of factors that influence the implementation and effectiveness of interventions. [57,58] The CFIR comprises five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and implementation process. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified about the outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), and 12 constructs were identified related to the inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to the process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect).…”

“…The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. [58,59] Two authors collaborated to produce one consolidated document containing all relevant codes by resolving disagreements between their original data extraction documents. Then, a third author was involved in resolving any conflicts.…”