Implementation science communications最新文献

{"title":"Bridging policy and implementation science: operationalising political and structural determinants for health policy implementation evaluation.","authors":"Sarah Forberger, Biljana Meshkovska, Lucia A Reisch, Aleksandra Luszczynska, Hajo Zeeb","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01137-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01137-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite their critical role in shaping public health policy implementation, key political and structural determinants within implementation frameworks are often poorly defined, underreported, or treated as background rather than as core implementation variables. Existing implementation science frameworks acknowledge these determinants, they lack systematic, operationalised guidance for reporting them, resulting in limited explanatory power, poor comparability, and an overemphasis on individual-level factors.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This paper aims to improve reporting standards in public health policy implementation evaluation by defining key political and structural determinants and proposing their operationalisation within established implementation frameworks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The synthesis drew on seven systematic and scoping reviews and three in-depth case studies from the PEN, ASTRA, and STOP projects, covering nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco control. We consolidated predefined, theory-informed extraction categories from the underlying reviews, together with recurring reporting gaps, into overarching reporting dimensions. We then contextualised and refined these dimensions using evidence from the three case studies across diverse governance levels and socio-political settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We consolidated and operationalised eight core reporting dimensions: (1) policy objectives and scope, (2) actors, power, and competence, (3) legal status and jurisdiction, (4) policy instruments (regulatory, economic, communicative, behavioural), (5) implementation strategies (centralised vs. decentralised, coordination mechanisms), (6) resources (financial, human, material, and implementation costs), (7) equity impact and (8) policy lifecycle. The dimensions specify political and structural information relevant to policy implementation evaluation and provide a structured basis for more systematic and transparent reporting across diverse policy contexts. The operationalisation is designed to complement and to be integrated into established implementation frameworks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Systematic and transparent reporting of political and structural determinants is essential for understanding the success or failure of policy implementation. The proposed operationalisation offers researchers and evaluators a practical approach to strengthen public health policy implementation evaluations. Designed for integration into frameworks such as CFIR and CICI, it may help identify leverage points, support adaptive policy design, and contribute to more effective, equitable, and sustainable public health interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149221124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond co-creation: why community-centered research ecosystems and advancing community research capacity building is implementation science's next frontier.","authors":"Ashley Hui Ying Teh, Shao Yuan Chong, Eleanor J Ong","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01032-8","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01032-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Implementation science has increasingly embraced community engagement through co-creation and community-based participatory research, yet capacity for conducting implementation research itself remains concentrated within academic institutions. This commentary argues that current approaches perpetuate structural dependencies where communities require academic intermediaries to validate knowledge about their own contexts. While implementation science invests substantially in capacity development for practitioners and researchers through training institutes and mentorship programs, these opportunities systematically exclude the communities we claim to partner with. Existing frameworks position communities primarily as sources of contextual knowledge rather than independent implementation scientists, creating bottlenecks in addressing health inequities and limiting the sustainability of implementation research capacity. Drawing on case studies from kayos kollective, a Singapore-based community research group, we illustrate how communities can develop implementation research competencies through structured capacity building that integrates research training with advocacy and program development. These examples demonstrate pathways for community members to gain methodological skills, intellectual capital, and sustained research infrastructure beyond episodic consultation models. We propose shifting from community-based participation toward community-formed research ecosystems standing infrastructures that support communities in identifying implementation problems, adapting frameworks, collecting and analysing data, and conducting advocacy independently of external investigators. This reframing positions communities as producers of implementation science rather than periodic participants and redefines academic partners as capacity builders and technical consultants. Such ecosystems preserve methodological rigour while enabling locally driven innovation and ongoing implementation learning that current participatory models cannot support. Community-formed research ecosystems also address a long-standing gap in the field: most interventions persist beyond the lifespan of research partnerships, yet communities are rarely equipped to evaluate fidelity, identify emerging barriers, or make evidence-informed adaptations once academic partners disengage. By embedding analytic and evaluative capacity directly within communities, this model creates a mechanism for sustaining implementation learning, preserving context-specific knowledge, and expanding the field's understanding of real-world implementation processes. Ultimately, decentralizing methodological authority in this way strengthens community research autonomy, supports equitable and durable implementation practices, and advances a more legitimate redistribution of research power.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13621628/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149076947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When is AI \"just another innovation\"? A comparative conceptual analysis of artificial intelligence and evidence-based practice implementation.","authors":"Per Nilsen, Kathrine Hald, Margit Neher","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01103-w","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01103-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implementation science frameworks, such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), are increasingly used to guide the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. This assumes that AI systems can be understood using frameworks developed primarily for evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, AI systems vary substantially in their technical architecture, degree of autonomy, dependence on local data, regulatory status and capacity for change after deployment.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine how different types of AI systems align with, extend or challenge core assumptions in implementation science, using CFIR as a diagnostic lens.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a comparative conceptual analysis of foundational implementation science literature, literature on complex interventions and technology-enabled care, and empirical and conceptual studies on AI implementation in healthcare. CFIR was used as an analytic lens to identify points of fit and tension across its five domains. The analysis was not designed as a systematic or scoping review, but as a theoretically informed comparison of recurring concepts and assumptions across bodies of literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>AI systems differ substantially in their implementation implications. Fixed or locked AI tools may resemble conventional digital interventions, whereas adaptive, data-dependent and generative AI systems raise more substantial challenges. Our analysis suggests that, across CFIR domains, adaptive and generative AI systems foreground issues such as opacity, probabilistic outputs, dependence on local data ecosystems, performance drift, vendor-mediated updating, regulatory uncertainty, professional identity tensions and the need for calibrated trust. These issues can often be mapped to existing frameworks, but in some cases they challenge assumptions of intervention stability, boundedness and evidentiary closure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI should not be treated as a homogeneous implementation object. Existing implementation science frameworks remain analytically valuable, but require refinement when applied to AI systems whose behavior depends on changing data, infrastructure, governance and use contexts. Implementation of such systems is better conceptualized as lifecycle stewardship than as a bounded rollout.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13570549/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148957438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Associations between organizational readiness and implementation fidelity in national implementation of WHO's labour care guide in Sweden: a prospective observational study.","authors":"Johanna Sjöberg, Anna Ramö Isgren, Thomas Abrahamsson, Marie Blomberg, Kristin Thomas","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01073-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01073-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>During 2024 and 2025, an adapted version of the World Health Organization's Labour Care Guide was implemented in approximately half of Sweden's labor wards within the PICRINO trial. Organizational readiness is widely regarded as a key determinant of successful implementation, however, empirical evidence linking organizational readiness to implementation outcomes remain limited. This study aimed to examine the association between organizational readiness for implementing the Labour Care Guide in Sweden and implementation fidelity, to explore variations in readiness and fidelity across organizational and individual factors and to assess changes in fidelity over time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included the implementation of the Labour Care Guide at ten labor wards in Sweden. Organizational readiness was measured among health care staff (n = 282) using the E-Ready 2.0 questionnaire before implementation was launched. Fidelity was assessed by analyzing degree of documentation within the Labour Care Guide tool at 3, 6, and 9 months (n = 750). A coding protocol including all seven sections of the tool, in which two sections were considered core components, was used to systematically analyze fidelity. Fidelity was then compared between wards with the aggregated highest, intermediate, and lowest levels of readiness at ward level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three wards reporting the aggregated highest levels of organizational readiness also demonstrated the highest implementation fidelity, while the three wards with the lowest reported aggregated readiness showed the lowest fidelity. In addition, staff at smaller labor wards reported greater readiness than staff at larger wards, and readiness was higher in non-university hospitals compared with university hospitals. Physicians reported higher readiness than midwives. Overall fidelity to the Labour Care Guide declined over time, however, this trend was not observed among core components.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides empirical support for an association between organizational readiness and implementation fidelity when introducing the Labour Care Guide in Sweden. Fidelity to core components remained stable, suggesting that essential elements were more resilient to implementation challenges. Findings highlight the importance of assessing and strengthening organizational readiness prior to implementation and of providing sustained support over time to maintain fidelity, particularly for non-core components.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov NCT05560802, 2022-09-17.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13501707/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148814829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Implementation barriers, facilitators, and fidelity of a mobile money-based savings tool for pregnant women in the Analamanga region of Madagascar: an ex-post process evaluation.","authors":"Lisa Bogler, Sebastian Vollmer, Zavaniarivo Rampanjato, Harizaka Emmanuel Andriamasy, Bítia Vieira, Louis Noël Schäfer, Elsa Rajemison, Onja Gabrielle Ravololohanitra, Andriamampianina Ralisimalala, Till Bärnighausen, Samuel Knauss, Julius Valentin Emmrich","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01055-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01055-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mobile payment services could improve access to obstetric care by easing saving, raising revenue, and pooling resources. Between 2019 and 2022, a mobile money-based savings tool for obstetric care was implemented in the Analamanga region of Madagascar following a randomized controlled trial design. We conducted an ex-post process evaluation of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed implementation fidelity and reach of the trial using five indicators from a population-based survey of 6,234 women who were pregnant during the intervention period and lived in catchment areas of 63 public primary-care health facilities (Centres de Santé de Base, CSBs) included in the trial: whether a woman (a) had heard of the tool, (b) could explain what it was, (c) had registered with it, (d) had used it to save, (e) had used it to pay for costs of childbirth. Combining the population-based survey with a healthcare provider survey and in-depth interviews with women, healthcare workers, and implementation staff, we examined factors associated with implementation quality, and barriers and facilitators to take-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sensitization led to statistically significantly higher take-up by women living in catchment areas of intervention CSBs compared to control CSBs: 39% vs 13% of surveyed women had heard of the tool, 33% vs 9% knew what it was, 15% vs 4% had registered, 15% vs 3% had saved with it and 10% vs 2% had paid with it. However, awareness and registration varied across intervention CSBs (4%-78%, 0%-54%). Key barriers to take-up included technical difficulties faced by providers, a disruption of informal benefits for providers, and mobile phone access. Learning about the tool from midwives was a facilitator.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the complexity of introducing a mobile money-based savings tool for obstetric care and the importance of evaluating implementation fidelity to understand trial impact. Strengthening community mobilization, providing more personalized support, and improving intervention compatibility with routine workflows could improve intervention delivery. User-centred design and phased roll-out allowing for continuous improvement cycles may help optimize effective implementation at scale.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The 4MOTHERS trial was registered on March 12, 2021, in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), identifier: DRKS00014928.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13474895/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148763139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Disproportionate pace of evidence-based care implementation in pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis: consequences and opportunities.","authors":"Claudia Gambrah-Lyles, Jordan J Cole, Alex T Ramsey","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01069-9","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01069-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) is a chronic autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that requires lifelong care. Long-term outcomes in POMS depend on both early therapeutic intervention and sustained continuity of specialty care into adulthood. However, there is a discrepancy between the speed and consistency at which pharmaceutical disease-modifying therapies and best practices for transition-to-adult care are incorporated into clinical practice. While pharmaceutical disease-modifying therapies have been rapidly incorporated into routine practice, uptake of best practices for transition-to-adult care has been inconsistent and slow, despite evidence-based guidelines and models.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>There is an urgent need for the implementation of transition-to-adult care interventions to \"catch up\" to that of disease-modifying therapies for POMS. Closing this gap is important because without a system of continuous care, patients lose access to disease-modifying therapies, negating the benefits of early and rapid uptake and jeopardizing long-term neurologic stability and outcomes as youth with multiple sclerosis (MS) grow into adulthood. This paper applies the Framework to Assess Speed of Translation (FAST) to examine this contrast in implementation pace and understand why pharmaceutical disease-modifying therapies have diffused rapidly, whereas innovations to support transitioning to adult care have not. We examine how innovation, adopter and contextual factors affect the diffusion and uptake of innovations in POMS, illustrating how interventions with observable relative advantage, strong champions, and compatibility with existing medical paradigms are propelled through the system, whereas interventions that are perceived as more complex, diffuse in ownership, and less visibly linked to outcomes are hindered. We argue that future efforts to improve transition-to-adult care in POMS must systematically identify and address determinants of pace that have slowed progress to date. Guided by the Designing for Accelerated Translation (DART) framework, we propose strategies for developing and mapping transition-to-adult care interventions that emphasize rapid translation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our objective is to facilitate the acceleration of translation of evidence-based transition-to-adult care practices in POMS so that continuity of care keeps pace with therapeutic innovation, maximizing long-term outcomes for this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13445904/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148686928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reframing simulation as an implementation strategy: a call for conceptual integration across two scientific communities.","authors":"Elizabeth Sanseau, Anne Adema, Marc Auerbach, Bethany M Kwan","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01048-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01048-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Simulation is an established evidence-based tool in healthcare. It is widely used for medical education (simulation-based medical education [SBME]), quality improvement, capacity building, audit and feedback, and probing healthcare systems for latent safety threats. Implementation science (IS) currently subsumes these functions under broad taxonomy categories such as \"conduct ongoing training\" or \"cyclical tests of change.\" This framing fails to capture simulation's distinct mechanisms and its unique potential to close the evidence-to-practice gap. We argue that the time has come for implementation scientists and the healthcare simulation community to come together around a shared question: does simulation, as it is already practiced in healthcare, meet the criteria for a discrete, named implementation strategy within taxonomies such as the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)?</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Drawing on the ERIC definition of an implementation strategy as \"methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of a clinical program or practice,\" we argue that simulation in healthcare already functions in this role across at least three distinct domains: developing individual and team competencies (SBME); probing healthcare systems for latent hazards and driving quality improvement; and operationalizing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and clinical decision supports (CDS) under realistic conditions. We specify simulation using established IS frameworks-including the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), the EPIS framework (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment), and the PRISM (Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model)-and propose a research agenda at the intersection of these two fields. High-reliability industries including aviation, astronautics, and nuclear power provide useful analogies, but the healthcare simulation literature has developed a robust and distinct evidence base in its own right, exemplified by translational simulation paradigms.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Simulation is not simply a training technique. It is a multi-mechanism, multi-level strategy with proven applications in healthcare education, QI, and systems change. Formally recognizing simulation within IS strategy taxonomies would sharpen conceptual clarity, enable more precise evaluation, and open a productive dialogue between two scientific communities whose work is more convergent than current frameworks suggest.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13419320/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148610734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Operationalizing recipient-centeredness: three facets of values-driven care in syringe services programs.","authors":"Elana Forman, William H Eger, Christopher F Akiba, Sheila V Patel, Shelby L Huffaker, Jessica Smith, Barrot H Lambdin, Alexis M Roth, Angela R Bazzi","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01051-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01051-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Syringe services programs (SSPs) offer critical, evidence-based services for people who use drugs (PWUD), including infectious disease and overdose prevention. SSPs operate from harm reduction and health equity frameworks, prioritizing non-coercive care and client autonomy; these values foster engagement among a community often stigmatized or discriminated against in traditional healthcare settings. As SSPs increasingly expand their clinical service offerings, they may encounter tensions among their core values, internal or funder-driven pressures for service expansion, and partnerships with external healthcare systems. Accordingly, we undertook a qualitative study to understand how SSP staff uphold core values and practice recipient-centeredness, as defined by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), when engaging PWUD in health services within harm reduction settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From May 2023 to February 2024, we conducted qualitative interviews with 41 representatives of 27 SSPs serving diverse U.S. jurisdictions. Guided by the CFIR, trained interviewers used semi-structured interview guides to explore SSPs' health services delivery models. From interviews, recipient-centeredness emerged as a central theme, leading us to employ thematic and narrative analysis to further explore how SSPs defined and operationalized this construct in their programs' health-related services.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SSP staff consistently emphasized the centrality of core values guiding their services, particularly recipient-centeredness. SSPs operationalized recipient-centeredness through three primary facets: accessibility, consistency, and non-coerciveness. These facets informed direct service delivery and referral processes, enabling programs to build trust and meet clients' complex needs. To uphold these facets, SSPs implemented low-barrier service access, mobile outreach, client-centered referrals, and predictable service schedules despite dynamic and sometimes unsupportive contexts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study offers a specific operationalization of recipient-centeredness for the unique and understudied setting of SSPs, identifying accessibility, consistency, and non-coerciveness as key facets of this organizational culture. Understanding these facets yields actionable guidance for supporting SSPs in implementing values-driven public health and prevention programming. These findings may also be relevant for other harm reduction and low-barrier care settings seeking to preserve trust, dignity, autonomy, and effectiveness while delivering evidence-based services.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NCT06025435.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13563885/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148932022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Promoting inclusivity and partnership with recipients of health services: short report on redesigning Engaging All Voices (previously Consumer Voice).","authors":"Eva N Woodward, Irenia A Ball, JoAnn E Kirchner, Sara J Landes, Leslie R M Hausmann, Cathleen Willging","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01040-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01040-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Researchers identified \"preparing patients to be active in innovations\" as one of the top five most effective implementation strategies; this included educating patients to be engaged in their care. If engaging patients in their own care enhances adoption of innovations, engaging patients and service users across any setting (e.g., healthcare, education, carceral) in implementation activities may also enhance adoption. To provide guidance on this topic, we developed Consumer Voice: a free, online platform for community engagement in implementation efforts. In July 2023, we disseminated the tools and received feedback from some researchers and implementers that \"consumer\" had a negative connotation for some. This feedback mimicked discontent with terminology for the \"service user\" in the broader implementation field. Our goal was to identify inclusive terminology for the \"service user\" because language may influence trust and participation in implementation practice or research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected quantitative data then qualitative data from service users, implementers, and implementation researchers in two phases: (1) Brainstorming and prioritizing terminology for service users through Nominal Group Technique (n = 58), then (2) Contextualizing implications of different terms through focus groups (n = 21). Between phases, we used quantitative counts to inform sampling and inductive qualitative analysis. Participants were from urban and rural areas across Arkansas, New York City, and several Navajo Nation and New Mexico communities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants represented a range of demographic groups; over 40% identified primarily as individuals receiving health services, 30% as implementers, and 26% as implementation researchers. There was consensus to rename our engagement tools \"Engaging All Voices.\" Our data indicated there was no universally acceptable term for \"service user.\" Even within similar communities, some terms were controversial e.g., \"patient,\" \"peer.\" Two terms felt off-limits to most: \"stakeholder\" and \"user.\" Participants thought any engagement language should convey a sense of action and partnership to move beyond performative, superficial \"engagement.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We sampled people from multiple service settings and thus, findings may generalize in healthcare, education, carceral, and other systems. Our experience redesigning Engaging All Voices revealed that how recipients of innovations are referred to can shape receptiveness to engagement approaches. There is no single \"right\" term to refer to service users across settings. Engaging All Voices now guides learners in an early exercise to determine terminology preferred by service users throughout an implementation effort.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149225139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a complex nursing intervention: a human-in-the-loop LLM-Assisted longitudinal and Cross-Case analysis across twelve cardiac surgery centres.","authors":"Yvonne J Jordens, Lilian Lechner, Myrna Pelgrum-Keurhorst, Roelof G A Ettema","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01043-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01043-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implementation of complex nursing interventions remains challenging, with success varying substantially across healthcare settings. Most implementation research assesses barriers and facilitators at single timepoints, limiting understanding of how these determinants evolve. Therefore, we aimed to understand how barriers and facilitators evolve over time during different implementation phases across three categories of implementation outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the \"Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment\" (EPIS) framework, this longitudinal qualitative study examined barriers and facilitators during implementation of the PREDOCS nursing intervention across twelve Dutch cardiothoracic centers from 2016 to 2019. We conducted 252 structured interviews across eight measurement waves with diverse healthcare professionals. Data were systematically coded for barriers and facilitators using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model through a hybrid approach combining Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted analysis with rigorous human verification. Hospitals were categorized into three implementation outcome groups: Implementation (n = 4), Delayed-Implementation (n = 5), and No-Implementation (n = 3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Barriers and facilitators evolved systematically across EPIS phases. Motivation remained universally high across all outcome groups throughout all phases. Fundamental knowledge gaps about intervention components during the Exploration phase were present in all three No-Implementation hospitals and absent in the Implementation group. Opportunity-domain factors, specifically the presence or absence of organizational infrastructure, resources, and management support, differed systematically between outcome groups across phases. As implementation progressed, the Implementation group reported a shift in the Capability domain from training barriers to available training and competent staff, a pattern absent in the Delayed and No-Implementation groups. Successful hospitals reported compensatory opportunity facilitators alongside persistent barriers, whereas hospitals that discontinued implementation reported sustained belief in intervention value in the absence of enabling organizational conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementation success depends less on motivation-building than on developing organizational infrastructure to translate intention into practice. Implementation determinants are not static: early knowledge gaps and absence of organizational facilitators functioned as early signals of later failure, and support strategies should therefore be phase-specific and longitudinally monitored rather than assessed at a single point in time.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148537547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}