Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 17:2:913585.
doi: 10.3389/frhs.2022.913585. eCollection 2022.

What implementation strategies are relational? Using Relational Theory to explore the ERIC implementation strategies

Affiliations

What implementation strategies are relational? Using Relational Theory to explore the ERIC implementation strategies

Leah Bartley et al. Front Health Serv. .

Abstract

The identification and use of implementation strategies in implementation research and practice have strengthened our understanding of the implementation process as well as the causal pathways between mechanisms, strategies, and implementation outcomes. Although these contributions have advanced the application of strategies, there is still a need to learn more about how strategies might integrate relational exchanges and interactions. The inclusion of critical perspectives has been limited in implementation science, and theories such as Relational Theory can expand our understanding of the relational nature of implementation and enhance rigor through alternative theoretical applications. This study applied Relational Theory through a qualitative directed content analysis of the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) implementation strategies and examine relational components in strategy descriptions. Three reviewers used the structured approach to review and categorize the implementation strategies based on the Relational and Transactional Strategy Continuum measure, which operationalizes types of interactions, exchanges and alliances. Relational alliance strategies are those in which there is mutual growth and accountability, frequent interaction, shared power, and potential vulnerability. Operational alliances include forms of working exchanges between parties with balanced transactional and relational features. Operational alliances can be somewhat interactive in nature, with minor exchanges and limited accountability. Transactional alliance strategies are mostly uni-directional, influenced by power differentials, and do not require mutual growth, commitment, or exchange; thus, the power of growth is inherently one-sided. Results from the review suggest more implementation strategies with relational alliance features (highly relational, n = 17, semi-relational, n = 19) compared to transactional (highly transactional, n = 9, semi-transactional, n = 10) and 18 strategies coded as operational alliances. The qualitative review revealed opportunities to further expand how relational exchanges are considered within the implementation strategies descriptions, as well as the role of actors and power dynamics within strategy exchanges. The Relational and Transactional Strategy Continuum measure can help practitioners and researchers consider the sequencing, pairing, and impact on outcomes of different types and combinations of strategies in implementation practice and research. Additionally, the measure can support reflection on strategies that promote positive alliances, frequent connections, bi-directional communication, and power sharing.

Keywords: Relational Theory; implementation practice; implementation strategies; relational strategies; transactional strategies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Author LB was employed by Kaye Implementation and Evaluation. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ERIC strategies relational and transactional coding summary results.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overview of relational and transactional coding results.

References

    1. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ. Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. (2015) 10:1–4. 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Powell BJ, Fernandez ME. Williams NJ, Aarons GA, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, et al. Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research agenda. Front Public Health. (2019) 7:3. 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00003 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Powell BJ, Lyon AR. Tuzzio L, Jones S, et al. From classification to causality: advancing understanding of mechanisms of change in implementation science. Front Public Health. (2018) 6:136. 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00136 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Geng EH, Peiris D, Kruk ME. Implementation science: relevance in the real world without sacrificing rigor. PLoS Med. (2017) 14:e1002288. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002288 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gold R, Bunce AE, Cohen DJ, Hollombe C, Nelson CA, Proctor EK, et al. Reporting on the strategies needed to implement proven interventions: an example from a “real-world” cross-setting implementation study. Mayo Clin Proc. (2016) 91:1074–83. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.03.014 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources