TY - JOUR
T1 - Expanding Hybrid Studies for Implementation Research
T2 - Intervention, Implementation Strategy, and Context
AU - Kemp, Christopher G.
AU - Wagenaar, Bradley H.
AU - Haroz, Emily E.
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Geoffrey Curran and Bryan Weiner for their valuable comments on this manuscript. The publication of this manuscript was supported by the University of Washington Implementation Science Program.
Funding Information:
We would like to thank Geoffrey Curran and Bryan Weiner for their valuable comments on this manuscript. The publication of this manuscript was supported by the University of Washington Implementation Science Program. Funding. CK was supported by grant number F31MH112397 from the National Institute of Mental Health. BW was supported by grant number K01MH110599 from the National Institute of Mental Health. EH was supported by grant number K01MH116335 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Funding Information:
CK was supported by grant number F31MH112397 from the National Institute of Mental Health. BW was supported by grant number K01MH110599 from the National Institute of Mental Health. EH was supported by grant number K01MH116335 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Publisher Copyright:
© Copyright © 2019 Kemp, Wagenaar and Haroz.
PY - 2019/11/8
Y1 - 2019/11/8
N2 - Successful implementation reflects the interplay between intervention, implementation strategy, and context. Hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies allow investigators to assess the effects of both intervention and implementation strategy, though the role of context as a third independent variable (IV) is incompletely specified. Our objective is to expand the hybrid typology to include mixtures of all three types of IVs: intervention, implementation strategy, and context. We propose to use I to represent the IV of intervention, IS to represent implementation strategy, and C to represent context. Primary IVs are written first and in upper case. Secondary IVs are written after a forward slash and in lower case; co-primary IVs are written after a dash and in upper case. The expanded framework specifies nine two-variable hybrid types: I/is, I-IS, IS/i, IS/c, IS-C, C/is, C/i, I-C, and I/c. We describe four in detail: I/is, IS/c, IS-C, and C/is. We also specify seven three-variable hybrid types. We argue that many studies already meet our definitions of two- or three-variable hybrids. Our proposal builds from the typology proposed by Curran et al. (1), but offers a more complete specification of hybrid study types. We need studies that measure the implementation-related effects of variations in contextual determinants, both to advance the science and to optimize intervention delivery in the real world. Prototypical implementation studies that evaluate the effectiveness of an implementation strategy, in isolation from its context, risk perpetuating the gap between evidence and practice, as they will not generate context-specific knowledge around implementation, scale-up, and de-implementation.
AB - Successful implementation reflects the interplay between intervention, implementation strategy, and context. Hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies allow investigators to assess the effects of both intervention and implementation strategy, though the role of context as a third independent variable (IV) is incompletely specified. Our objective is to expand the hybrid typology to include mixtures of all three types of IVs: intervention, implementation strategy, and context. We propose to use I to represent the IV of intervention, IS to represent implementation strategy, and C to represent context. Primary IVs are written first and in upper case. Secondary IVs are written after a forward slash and in lower case; co-primary IVs are written after a dash and in upper case. The expanded framework specifies nine two-variable hybrid types: I/is, I-IS, IS/i, IS/c, IS-C, C/is, C/i, I-C, and I/c. We describe four in detail: I/is, IS/c, IS-C, and C/is. We also specify seven three-variable hybrid types. We argue that many studies already meet our definitions of two- or three-variable hybrids. Our proposal builds from the typology proposed by Curran et al. (1), but offers a more complete specification of hybrid study types. We need studies that measure the implementation-related effects of variations in contextual determinants, both to advance the science and to optimize intervention delivery in the real world. Prototypical implementation studies that evaluate the effectiveness of an implementation strategy, in isolation from its context, risk perpetuating the gap between evidence and practice, as they will not generate context-specific knowledge around implementation, scale-up, and de-implementation.
KW - context
KW - hybrid studies
KW - implementation science
KW - implementation strategy
KW - intervention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075674008&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075674008&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00325
DO - 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00325
M3 - Article
C2 - 31781528
AN - SCOPUS:85075674008
SN - 2296-2565
VL - 7
JO - Frontiers in Public Health
JF - Frontiers in Public Health
M1 - 325
ER -