Contributing reviewersThe editors of Implementation Science would like to thank all our reviewers who have contributed to the journal in Volume 10 (2015).

BackgroundA 2-day consensus working meeting, hosted by the United States National Institutes of Health and the Veterans Administration, focused on issues related to dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in measurement and reporting. Meeting participants included 23 researchers, practitioners, and decision makers from the USA and Canada who concluded that the field would greatly benefit from measurement resources to enhance the ease, harmonization, and rigor of D&I evaluation efforts. This paper describes the findings from an environmental scan and literature review of resources for D&I measures.FindingsWe identified a total of 17 resources, including four web-based repositories and 12 static reviews or tools that attempted to synthesize and evaluate existing measures for D&I research. Thirteen resources came from the health discipline, and 11 were populated from database reviews. Ten focused on quantitative measures, and all were generated as a resource for researchers. Fourteen were organized according to an established D&I theory or framework, with the number of constructs and measures ranging from 1 to more than 450. Measure metadata was quite variable with only six providing information on the psychometric properties of measures.ConclusionsAdditional guidance on the development and use of measures are needed. A number of approaches, resources, and critical areas for future work are discussed. Researchers and stakeholders are encouraged to take advantage of a number of funding mechanisms supporting this type of work.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0401-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed with the aim of helping health professionals, patients, and caregivers make decisions about their health care, using the best available evidence. In many cases, incorporation of these recommendations into clinical practice also implies a need for changes in routine clinical practice. Using educational games as a strategy for implementing recommendations among health professionals has been demonstrated to be effective in some studies; however, evidence is still scarce. The primary objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a teaching strategy for the implementation of CPGs using educational games (e-learning EDUCAGUIA) to improve knowledge and skills related to clinical decision-making by residents in family medicine. The primary objective will be evaluated at 1 and 6 months after the intervention. The secondary objectives are to identify barriers and facilitators for the use of guidelines by residents of family medicine and to describe the educational strategies used by Spanish teaching units of family and community medicine to encourage implementation of CPGs.Methods/designWe propose a multicenter clinical trial with randomized allocation by clusters of family and community medicine teaching units in Spain. The sample size will be 394 residents (197 in each group), with the teaching units as the randomization unit and the residents comprising the analysis unit. For the intervention, both groups will receive an initial 1-h session on clinical practice guideline use and the usual dissemination strategy by e-mail. The intervention group (e-learning EDUCAGUIA) strategy will consist of educational games with hypothetical clinical scenarios in a virtual environment.The primary outcome will be the score obtained by the residents on evaluation questionnaires for each clinical practice guideline. Other included variables will be the sociodemographic and training variables of the residents and the teaching unit characteristics. The statistical analysis will consist of a descriptive analysis of variables and a baseline comparison of both groups. For the primary outcome analysis, an average score comparison of hypothetical scenario questionnaires between the EDUCAGUIA intervention group and the control group will be performed at 1 and 6 months post-intervention, using 95 % confidence intervals. A linear multilevel regression will be used to adjust the model.DiscussionThe identification of effective teaching strategies will facilitate the incorporation of available knowledge into clinical practice that could eventually improve patient outcomes. The inclusion of information technologies as teaching tools permits greater learning autonomy and allows deeper instructor participation in the monitoring and supervision of residents. The long-term impact of this strategy is unknown; however, because it is aimed at professionals undergoing training and it addresses prevalent health problems, a small effect can be of great relevance.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02210442.

BackgroundHealth information technologies (HIT) have become nearly ubiquitous in the contemporary healthcare landscape, but information about HIT development, functionality, and implementation readiness is frequently siloed. Theory-driven methods of compiling, evaluating, and integrating information from the academic and commercial sectors are necessary to guide stakeholder decision-making surrounding HIT adoption and to develop pragmatic HIT research agendas. This article presents the Health Information Technologies—Academic and Commercial Evaluation (HIT-ACE) methodology, a structured, theory-driven method for compiling and evaluating information from multiple sectors. As an example demonstration of the methodology, we apply HIT-ACE to mental and behavioral health measurement feedback systems (MFS). MFS are a specific class of HIT that support the implementation of routine outcome monitoring, an evidence-based practice.ResultsHIT-ACE is guided by theories and frameworks related to user-centered design and implementation science. The methodology involves four phases: (1) coding academic and commercial materials, (2) developer/purveyor interviews, (3) linking putative implementation mechanisms to hit capabilities, and (4) experimental testing of capabilities and mechanisms. In the current demonstration, phase 1 included a systematic process to identify MFS in mental and behavioral health using academic literature and commercial websites. Using user-centered design, implementation science, and feedback frameworks, the HIT-ACE coding system was developed, piloted, and used to review each identified system for the presence of 38 capabilities and 18 additional characteristics via a consensus coding process. Bibliometic data were also collected to examine the representation of the systems in the scientific literature. As an example, results are presented for the application of HIT-ACE phase 1 to MFS wherein 49 separate MFS were identified, reflecting a diverse array of characteristics and capabilities.ConclusionsPreliminary findings demonstrate the utility of HIT-ACE to represent the scope and diversity of a given class of HIT beyond what can be identified in the academic literature. Phase 2 data collection is expected to confirm and expand the information presented and phases 3 and 4 will provide more nuanced information about the impact of specific HIT capabilities. In all, HIT-ACE is expected to support adoption decisions and additional HIT development and implementation research.

BackgroundThe objective of this work was to inform the design of a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision-making in health policy and practice for the Americas region. Specifically, we focus on the following: (1) What are the best methodological approaches for rapid reviews of the research evidence? (2) What other strategies are needed to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making in health policy and practice? and (3) How best to operationalize a rapid response program?MethodsThe evidence used to inform the design of a rapid response program included (i) two rapid reviews of methodological approaches for rapid reviews of the research evidence and strategies to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making, (ii) supplementary literature in relation to the “shortcuts” that could be considered to reduce the time needed to complete rapid reviews, (iii) four case studies, and (iv) supplementary literature to identify additional operational issues for the design of the program.ResultsThere is no agreed definition of rapid reviews in the literature and no agreed methodology for conducting them. Better reporting of rapid review methods is needed. The literature found in relation to shortcuts will be helpful in choosing shortcuts that maximize timeliness while minimizing the impact on quality. Evidence for other strategies that can be used concurrently to facilitate the uptake of research evidence, including evidence drawn from rapid reviews, is presented. Operational issues that need to be considered in designing a rapid response program include the implications of a “user-pays” model, the importance of recruiting staff with the right mix of skills and qualifications, and ensuring that the impact of the model on research use in decision-making is formally evaluated.ConclusionsWhen designing a new rapid response program, greater attention needs to be given to specifying the rapid review methods and reporting these in sufficient detail to allow a quality assessment. It will also be important to engage in other strategies to facilitate the uptake of the rapid reviews and to evaluate the chosen model in order to make refinements and add to the evidence base for evidence-informed decision-making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0472-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMen with localized prostate cancer often have unrealistic expectations. Practitioners are poor judges of men’s preferences, contributing to preference misdiagnosis and unwarranted practice variation. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support men with decisions about localized prostate cancer. This is a comparative case study of two strategies for implementing PtDAs in clinical pathways for men with localized prostate cancer, evaluating (a) PtDA use; (b) impact on men, practitioners, and health system outcomes; and (c) factors influencing sustained use.Methods/designGuided by the Knowledge to Action Framework, this comparative case study will be conducted using administrative data, interviews, and surveys. Cases will be bound by geographic location (one hospital in Ontario; province of Saskatchewan) and time. Eligible participants will be all men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, with outcomes assessed using administrative data and interviews. Nurses, urologists, radiation oncologists, and managers will be surveyed and a smaller sample interviewed. Cases will be established for each setting with findings compared across cases. Changes in the proportions of men given the PtDA over 2 years will be determined from administrative data. Factors associated with receiving the PtDA will be explored using multivariable logistic regression analysis. To assess the impact of the PtDA, outcomes will be described using mean and standard deviation (men’s decisional conflict) and frequency and proportions (practitioners consulted, uptake of treatment). To estimate the effect of the PtDA on these outcomes, adjusted mean differences and odds ratios will be calculated using exploratory multivariable general linear regression and binary or multinomial logistic regression. Factors influencing sustained PtDA use will be assessed using descriptive analysis of survey findings and thematic analysis of interview transcripts.DiscussionDetermining how to embed PtDAs effectively within clinical pathways for men with localized prostate cancer is essential. PtDAs have the potential to strengthen men’s active role in making prostate cancer decisions, enhance uptake of shared decision-making by practitioners, and reduce practice variation. Our team of researchers and knowledge users will use findings to improve current PtDA use and consider scaling-up implementation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0451-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundGeneral medical hospitals provide care for a disproportionate share of patients who abuse or are dependent upon substances. This group is among the most costly to treat and has the poorest medical and addiction recovery outcomes. Hospitalization provides a unique opportunity to identify and motivate patients to address their substance use problems in that patients are accessible, have time for an intervention, and are often admitted for complications related to substance use that renders hospitalization a “teachable moment.”Methods/DesignThis randomized controlled trial will examine the effectiveness of three different strategies for integrating motivational interviewing (MI) into the practice of providers working within a general medical inpatient hospitalist service: (1) a continuing medical education workshop that provides background and “shows” providers how to conduct MI (See One); (2) an apprenticeship model involving workshop training plus live supervision of bedside practice (Do One); and (3) ordering MI from the psychiatry consultation-liaison (CL) service after learning about it in a workshop (Order One). Thirty providers (physicians, physician assistants, nurses) will be randomized to conditions and then assessed for their provision of MI to 40 study-eligible inpatients. The primary aims of the study are to assess (1) the utilization of MI in each condition; (2) the integrity of MI when providers use it on the medical units; and (3) the relative costs and cost-effectiveness of the three different implementation strategies.DiscussionIf implementation of Do One and Order One is successful, the field will have two alternative strategies for supporting medical providers’ proficient use of brief behavioral interventions, such as MI, for medical inpatients who use substances problematically.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov (NCT01825057)

Two critical but poorly understood components of EBP implementation requiring collaboration across different organizations are interactions among key stakeholders and use of research evidence (URE). This paper examines the association between consensus on URE among leaders of different child-serving systems and stage of implementation of an evidence-based practice.

Contributing reviewersThe editors of Implementation Science would like to thank all our reviewers and editors who have contributed to the journal in Volume 9 (2014).

BackgroundWhile there is convincing evidence on interventions to improve bowel preparation for patients, the evidence on how to implement these evidence-based practices (EBPs) in outpatient colonoscopy settings is less certain. The Strategies to Improve Colonoscopy (STIC) study compares the effect of two implementation strategies, physician education alone versus physician education plus an implementation toolkit for staff, on adoption of three EBPs (split-dosing of bowel preparation, low-literacy education, teach-back) to improve pre-procedure and intra-procedure quality measures. The implementation toolkit contains a staff education module, website containing tools to support staff in delivering EBPs, tailored patient education materials, and brief consultation with staff to determine how the EBPs can be integrated into the existing workflow. Given adaptations to the implementation plan and intentional flexibility in the delivery of the EBPs, we utilize a pragmatic study to balance external validity with demonstrating effectiveness of the implementation strategies.Methods/DesignParticipants will include all outpatient colonoscopy physicians, staff, and patients from a convenience sample of six endoscopy settings. Aim #1 will explore the relative effect of two strategies to implement patient-level EBPs on adoption and clinical quality outcomes. We will assess the change in level and trends of clinical quality outcomes (i.e., adequacy of bowel preparation, adenoma detection) using segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series data with two groups (intervention and delayed start). Aim #2 will examine the influence of organizational readiness to change on EBP implementation. We use a PRECIS diagram to reflect the extent to which each indicator of the study was pragmatic versus explanatory, revealing a largely pragmatic study.DiscussionImplementation challenges have already motivated several adaptations to the original plan, reflecting the nature of implementation in real-world healthcare settings. The pragmatic study responds to the evolving needs of its healthcare partners and allows for flexibility in intervention delivery, thereby informing clinical decision-making in real-world settings. The current study will provide information about what works (intervention effectiveness), for whom it works (influence of Medicaid versus other insurance), in which contexts it works (setting characteristics that influence implementation), and how it works best (comparison of implementation strategies).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0276-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.