English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Implementation science frameworks advise the engagement of multi-level partners (at the patient, provider, and systems level) to adapt and increase the uptake of evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, there is little guidance to ensure that systems-level adaptations reflect the voices of providers who deliver and patients/caregivers who receive EBPs. Methods We present a novel methodology, grounded in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which anchors the engagement of multi-level partners to the voices of individuals who deliver and receive EBPs. Using the CFIR domains:  intervention adaptation ,  individuals involved ,  inner/outer setting , and  process , we illustrate our 4-step methodology through a case example of Asthma Link, a school-supervised asthma management intervention. In step 1, we interviewed “ individuals involved ” in the intervention (providers/caregivers/patients of Asthma Link) to identify implementation barriers. In step 2, we selected systems-level partners in the “ inner and outer setting ” that could assist with addressing these barriers. In step 3, we presented the barriers to these systems-level partners and conducted semi-structured interviews to elicit their recommended solutions ( process ). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and open-coded. A theoretical sampling model and deductive reasoning were used to identify solutions to implementation barriers. In step 4, we utilized multi-level input to  adapt  the Asthma Link  intervention . Results Identified barriers included inability to obtain two inhalers for home and school use, inconsistent delivery of the inhaler to school by families, and challenges when schools did not have a nurse. Interviews conducted with school/clinic leaders, pharmacists, payors, legislators, and policymakers ( n =22) elicited solutions to address provider and patient/caregiver-identified barriers, including (1) establishing a Medicaid-specific pharmacy policy to allow dispensation of two inhalers, (2) utilizing pharmacy-school delivery services to ensure medication reaches schools, and (3) identifying alternate (non-nurse) officials to supervise medication administration. The iterative  process  of engaging multi-level partners helped to create an adapted Asthma Link intervention, primed for effective implementation. Conclusions This novel methodology, grounded in the CFIR, ensures that systems-level changes that require the engagement of multi-level partners reflect the voices of individuals who deliver and receive EBPs. This methodology demonstrates the dynamic interplay of CFIR domains to advance the field of implementation science.

implementation science communications

CENTER-IT: a novel methodology for adapting multi-level interventions using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research—a case example of a school-supervised asthma intervention