Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2020
  • Online publication date: July 2020

23 - Implementation Science and Translation in Behavior Change

from Part II - Methods and Processes of Behavior Change: Intervention Development, Application, and Translation

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of implementation science approaches relevant for behavior change interventions, including those developed to (1) identify and explain implementation processes (e.g., the Ottawa model for research use); (2) identify implementation determinants, including barriers and facilitators (e.g., the consolidated framework for implementation research); and (3) select implementation outcomes and conduct the evaluation of implementation processes (e.g., the RE-AIM model). Implementation approaches may be further divided into implementation theories, evidence-based frameworks, and taxonomies used to identify and manage key aspects of implementation that contribute to determining the efficacy of behavior change interventions delivered in “real-world” contexts. The chapter concludes with an example of a translational research model providing a set of overarching descriptions of the processes linking basic science findings with the evidence-based applications.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Abraham, C., Johnson, B. T., de Bruin, M., & Luszczynska, A. (2014). Enhancing reporting of behavior change intervention evaluations. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 66, S293S299. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000231
Bartholomew Eldredge, L. K., Markham, C. M., Ruiter, R. A. C., Fernández, M. E., Kok, G., & Parcel, G. S. (2016). Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L., Hagedorn, H., Smith, J., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychology, 3, 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9
Birken, S. A., Powell, B. J., Shea, C. M. et al. (2017). Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: Results from an international survey. Implementation Science, 12, 124. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0656-y
Cane, J., O’Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012). Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation. Implementation Science, 7, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-37
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E. et al. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4, 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
Drolet, B. C., & Lorenzi, N. M. (2011). Translational research: Understanding the continuum from bench to bedside. Translational Research, 157, 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2010.10.002
Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1
Glasgow, R. E., Klesges, L. M., Dzewaltowski, D. A., Bull, S. S., & Estabrooks, P. (2004). The future of health behavior change research: What is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 312. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm2701_2
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1322–1237.
Graham, I. D., & Logan, J. (2004). Innovations in knowledge transfer and continuity of care. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 36, 89103.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Bate, P., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2005). Diffusion of innovations in service organisations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82, 581629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
Hagger, M. S., & Weed, M. E. (2019). DEBATE: Do behavioral interventions work in the real world? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16, 36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0795-4
Horodyska, K., Luszczynska, A., Hayes, C. B. et al. (2015). Implementation conditions for diet and physical activity interventions and policies: An umbrella review. BMC Public Health, 15, 1250. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2585-5
Horodyska, K., Luszczynska, A., van den Berg, M. et al. (2015). Good practice characteristics of diet and physical activity interventions and policies: An umbrella review. BMC Public Health, 15, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1354-9
Leeman, J., Birken, S. A., Powell, B. J., Rohweder, C., & Shea, C. M. (2017). Beyond “implementation strategies”: Classifying the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice. Implementation Science, 12, 125. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0657-x
Lewis, C. C., Fischer, S., Weiner, B. J., Stanick, C., Kim, M., & Martinez, R. G. (2015). Outcomes for implementation science: An enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implementation Science, 10, 155. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0342-x
Logan, J., & Graham, I. D. (2010). The Ottawa model of research use. In Bucknall, J. R. M. (Ed.), Models and Frameworks for Implementing Evidence-Based Practice: Evidence to Action (pp. 83108). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Luebbers, E. L., Dolansky, M. A., Vehovec, A., & Petty, G. (2017). Implementation and evaluation of community-based interprofessional learning activity. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 31, 9197, https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2016.1237936
Luszczynska, A., Horodyska, K., Zarychta, K., Liszewska, N., Knoll, N., & Scholz, U. (2016). Planning and self-efficacy interventions encouraging replacing energy-dense foods intake with fruit and vegetable: A longitudinal experimental study. Psychology and Health, 31, 4064. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2015.1070156
Michie, S., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Lawton, R., Parker, D., & Walker, A. (2005). Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14, 2633. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011155
Muellmann, S., Steenbock., B., De Cocker, K. et al. (2017). Views of policy makers and health promotion professionals on factors facilitating implementation and maintenance of interventions and policies promoting physical activity and healthy eating: results of the DEDIPAC project. BMC Public Health, 17, 932. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4929-9
Nathan, N., Yoong, S. L., Sutherland, R. et al. (2016). Effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to enhance implementation of a healthy canteen policy in Australian primary schools: A randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13, 106. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0431-5
Nilsen, P. (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10, 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0
Ory, M. G., Jordan, P. J., & Bazzarre, T. (2002). The behavior change consortium: Setting the stage for a new century of health behavior-change research. Health Education Research, 17, 500511. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/17.5.500
Peters, G. -J. Y., de Bruin, M., & Crutzen, R. (2015). Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler: Towards a protocol for accumulating evidence regarding the active content of health behaviour change interventions. Health Psychology Review, 9, 114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.848409
Pfadenhauer, L. M., Gerhardus, A., Mozygemba, K. et al. (2017). Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: The Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework. Implementation Science, 12, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0552-5
Proctor, E. K., Landsverk, J., Aarons, G., Chambers, D., Gilsson, C., & Mittman, B. (2009). Implementation research in mental health services: An emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 36, 2234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R. et al. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 38, 6576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
Rabin, B. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2012). Developing the terminology for dissemination and implementation research. In Brownson, R., C, Colditz, G. A., & Proctor, E. K, (Eds.), Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (pp. 2351). New York: Oxford University Press.
Reilly, K., Nathan, N., Grady, A. et al. (2019). Barriers to implementation of a healthy canteen policy: A survey using the theoretical domains framework. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.218
Rubio, D. M., Schoenbaum, E. E., Lee, L. S. et al. (2010). Defining translational research: Implications for training. Academic Medicine, 85, 470475. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccd618.
Rutter, H., Savona, N., Glonti, K. et al. (2017). The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet, 390, 26022604. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31267-9
SIRC (Society for Implementation Research Collaboration). (2018). The SIRC Instrument Review Project (IRP): A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Implementation Science Instruments. www.societyforimplementationresearchcollaboration.org/sirc-projects/sirc-instrument-project
Steckler, A., Goodman, R. M., McLeroy, K. R., Davis, S., & Koch, G. (1992). Measuring the diffusion of innovative health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6, 214224. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-6.3.214
Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2012). Bridging research and practice: Models for dissemination and implementation research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43, 337350.