A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022.

Ashcraft LE, Goodrich DE, Hero J, Phares A, Bachrach RL, Quinn DA, Qureshi N, Ernecoff NC, Lederer LG, Scheunemann LP, Rogal SS, Chinman MJ. A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022. Implementation science : IS. 2024 Jun 24; 19(1):43.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 20-057 – Implementation Intervention to Improve Care for Unhealthy Alcohol Use

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Studies of implementation strategies range in rigor, design, and evaluated outcomes, presenting interpretation challenges for practitioners and researchers. This systematic review aimed to describe the body of research evidence testing implementation strategies across diverse settings and domains, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy to classify strategies and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to classify outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies examining implementation strategies from 2010-2022 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235592). We searched databases using terms "implementation strategy", "intervention", "bundle", "support", and their variants. We also solicited study recommendations from implementation science experts and mined existing systematic reviews. We included studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of at least one implementation strategy to improve health or health care using an outcome that could be mapped to the five evaluation dimensions of RE-AIM. Only studies meeting prespecified methodologic standards were included. We described the characteristics of studies and frequency of implementation strategy use across study arms. We also examined common strategy pairings and cooccurrence with significant outcomes. FINDINGS: Our search resulted in 16,605 studies; 129 met inclusion criteria. Studies tested an average of 6.73 strategies (0-20 range). The most assessed outcomes were Effectiveness (n = 82; 64%) and Implementation (n = 73; 56%). The implementation strategies most frequently occurring in the experimental arm were Distribute Educational Materials (n = 99), Conduct Educational Meetings (n = 96), Audit and Provide Feedback (n = 76), and External Facilitation (n = 59). These strategies were often used in combination. Nineteen implementation strategies were frequently tested and associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, many strategies were not tested sufficiently to draw conclusions. CONCLUSION: This review of 129 methodologically rigorous studies built upon prior implementation science data syntheses to identify implementation strategies that had been experimentally tested and summarized their impact on outcomes across diverse outcomes and clinical settings. We present recommendations for improving future similar efforts.