"We start where we are": a qualitative study of barriers and pragmatic solutions to the assessment and reporting of implementation strategy fidelity
- PMID: 36309715
- PMCID: PMC9617230
- DOI: 10.1186/s43058-022-00365-4
"We start where we are": a qualitative study of barriers and pragmatic solutions to the assessment and reporting of implementation strategy fidelity
Abstract
Background: Fidelity measurement of implementation strategies is underdeveloped and underreported, and the level of reporting is decreasing over time. Failing to properly measure the factors that affect the delivery of an implementation strategy may obscure the link between a strategy and its outcomes. Barriers to assessing and reporting implementation strategy fidelity among researchers are not well understood. The aims of this qualitative study were to identify barriers to fidelity measurement and pragmatic pathways towards improvement.
Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews among researchers conducting implementation trials. We utilized a theory-informed interview approach to elicit the barriers and possible solutions to implementation strategy fidelity assessment and reporting. Reflexive-thematic analysis guided coding and memo-writing to determine key themes regarding barriers and solutions.
Results: Twenty-two implementation researchers were interviewed. Participants agreed that implementation strategy fidelity was an essential element of implementation trials and that its assessment and reporting should improve. Key thematic barriers focused on (1) a current lack of validated fidelity tools with the need to assess fidelity in the short term, (2) the complex nature of some implementation strategies, (3) conceptual complications when assessing fidelity within mechanisms-focused implementation research, and (4) structural issues related to funding and publishing. Researchers also suggested pragmatic solutions to overcome each barrier. Respondents reported using specification and tracking data in the short term until validated tools become available. Participants suggested that researchers with strategy-specific content expertise lead the way in identifying core components and setting fidelity requirements for them. Addressing the third barrier, participants provided examples of what pragmatic prospective and retrospective fidelity assessments might look like along a mechanistic pathway. Finally, researchers described approaches to minimize costs of data collection, as well as more structural accountability like adopting and enforcing reporting guidelines or changing the structure of funding opportunities.
Discussion: We propose short- and long-term priorities for improving the assessment and reporting of implementation strategy fidelity and the quality of implementation research.
Conclusions: A better understanding of the barriers to implementation strategy fidelity assessment may pave the way towards pragmatic solutions.
Keywords: Implementation strategy fidelity; Mechanisms; Specification; Tracking.
© 2022. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
The case for prioritizing implementation strategy fidelity measurement: benefits and challenges.Transl Behav Med. 2022 Feb 16;12(2):335-342. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibab138. Transl Behav Med. 2022. PMID: 34791480 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing fidelity to evidence-based quality improvement as an implementation strategy for patient-centered medical home transformation in the Veterans Health Administration.Implement Sci. 2020 Mar 18;15(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-0979-y. Implement Sci. 2020. PMID: 32183873 Free PMC article.
-
Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250. Health Technol Assess. 2010. PMID: 20501062 Review.
-
Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.Health Technol Assess. 2020 Sep;24(46):1-490. doi: 10.3310/hta24460. Health Technol Assess. 2020. PMID: 32975190 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
How well are implementation strategies and target healthcare professional behaviors reported? A secondary analysis of 204 implementation trials using the TIDieR checklist and AACTT framework.Implement Sci. 2025 Jun 2;20(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s13012-025-01442-7. Implement Sci. 2025. PMID: 40457368 Free PMC article.
-
A conceptual framework for assessing implementation strategy integrity.Implement Res Pract. 2024 Dec 5;5:26334895241297278. doi: 10.1177/26334895241297278. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec. Implement Res Pract. 2024. PMID: 39650595 Free PMC article.
-
A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022.Implement Sci. 2024 Jun 24;19(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01369-5. Implement Sci. 2024. PMID: 38915102 Free PMC article.
-
A research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms.Implement Sci Commun. 2024 Sep 16;5(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s43058-024-00633-5. Implement Sci Commun. 2024. PMID: 39285504 Free PMC article.
-
Fidelity to the ACT SMART Toolkit: an instrumental case study of implementation strategy fidelity.Implement Sci Commun. 2023 May 16;4(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00434-2. Implement Sci Commun. 2023. PMID: 37194052 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Dobson D, Cook TJ. Avoiding type III error in program evaluation: results from a field experiment. Eval Program Plann. 1980;3(4):269–276.
-
- Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin Psychol Rev. 1998;18(1):23–45. - PubMed
-
- Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M, Hansen WB. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Educ Res. 2003;18(2):237–256. - PubMed
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources