Allison J. Metz's research while affiliated with University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and other places

Background: Attention is being placed on the “ironic gap” or “secondary” research-to-practice gap in the field of implementation science. Among several challenges posited to exacerbate this research-to-practice gap, we call attention to one challenge in particular—the relative dearth of implementation research that is tethered intimately to the lived experiences of implementation support practitioners (ISPs). The purpose of this study is to feature a qualitative approach to engaging with highly experienced ISPs to inform the development of a practice-driven research agenda in implementation science. In general, we aim to encourage ongoing empirical inquiry that foregrounds practice-driven implementation research questions. Method: Our analytic sample was comprised of 17 professionals in different child and family service systems, each with long-term experience using implementation science frameworks to support change efforts. Data were collected via in- depth, semi-structured interviews. Our analysis followed a qualitative content analysis approach. Our focal conceptual category centered on the desired areas of future research highlighted by respondents, with subcategories reflecting subsets of related research question ideas. Results: Interviews yielded varying responses that could help shape a practice-driven research agenda for the field of implementation science. The following subcategories regarding desired areas for future research were identified in respondents’ answers: (a) stakeholder engagement and developing trusting relationships, (b) evidence use, (c) work- force development, and (d) cost-effective implementation. Conclusions: There is significant promise in bringing implementation research and implementation practice together more closely and building a practice-informed research agenda to shape implementation science. Our findings point not only to valuable practice-informed gaps in the literature that could be filled by implementation researchers, but also topics for which dissemination and translation efforts may not have yielded optimal reach. We also highlight the value in ISPs bolstering their own capacity for engaging with the implementation science literature to the fullest extent possible.

Context: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) has become prominent in public health settings; yet, little consolidated guidance exists for building CQI capacity of community-based organizations. Objective: To synthesize relevant literature to identify guiding principles and core components critical to building the capacity of organizations to adopt and use CQI. Design: We employed a systematic review approach to assess guiding principles and core components for CQI capacity-building as outlined in the literature. Eligibility criteria: Studies meeting the following criteria were eligible for review: (1) empirical, peer-reviewed journal article, evaluation study, review, or systematic review; (2) published in 2010 or later; and (3) capacity-building activities were described in enough detail to be replicable. Studies not including human subjects, published in a language other than English, or for which full text was not available were excluded. Study selection: The initial return of records included 6557 articles, of which 1455 were duplicates. The research team single-screened titles and abstracts of 5102 studies, resulting in the exclusion of 4842 studies. Two hundred sixty-two studies were double-screened during full-text review, yielding a final sample of 61 studies from which data were extracted. Main outcome measures: Outcome measures of interest were operationalized descriptions of guiding principles and core components of the CQI capacity-building approach. Results: Results yielded articles from medical education, health care, and public health settings. Findings included guiding principles and core components of CQI capacity-building identified in current practice, as well as infrastructural and contextual elements needed to build CQI capacity. Conclusions: This consolidation of guiding principles and core components for CQI capacity-building is valuable for public health and related workforces. Despite the uneven distribution of articles from health care, medical education, and public health settings, our findings can be used to guide public health organizations in building CQI capacity in a well-informed, systematic manner.