Use of implementation mapping to develop a multifaceted implementation strategy for an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation

Abstract

Abstract Background Electronic Prospective Surveillance Models (ePSMs) remotely monitor the rehabilitation needs of people with cancer via patient-reported outcomes at pre-defined time points during cancer care and deliver support, including links to self-management education and community programs, and recommendations for further clinical screening and rehabilitation referrals. Previous guidance on implementing ePSMs lacks sufficient detail on approaches to select implementation strategies for these systems. The purpose of this article is to describe how we developed an implementation plan for REACH, an ePSM system designed for breast, colorectal, lymphoma, and head and neck cancers. Methods Implementation Mapping guided the process of developing the implementation plan. We integrated findings from a scoping review and qualitative study our team conducted to identify determinants to implementation, implementation actors and actions, and relevant outcomes. Determinants were categorized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the identification of outcomes. Next, determinants were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy of strategies using the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool. The list of strategies produced was refined through discussion amongst our team and feedback from knowledge users considering each strategy’s feasibility and importance rating via the Go-Zone plot, feasibility and applicability to the clinical contexts, and use among other ePSMs reported in our scoping review. Results Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 22 were identified as relevant determinants. Clinic managers, information technology teams, and healthcare providers with key roles in patient education were identified as important actors. The CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool resulted in 50 strategies with Level 1 endorsement and 13 strategies with Level 2 endorsement. The final list of strategies included 1) purposefully re-examine the implementation, 2) tailor strategies, 3) change record systems, 4) conduct educational meetings, 5) distribute educational materials, 6) intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence, 7) centralize technical assistance, and 8) use advisory boards and workgroups. Conclusion We present a generalizable method that incorporates steps from Implementation Mapping, engages various knowledge users, and leverages implementation science frameworks to facilitate the development of an implementation strategy. An evaluation of implementation success using the implementation outcomes framework is underway.

Keywords

• Implementation science
• Implementation mapping
• Consolidated framework for implementation research
• Knowledge to action framework
• Expert recommendations for implementing change
• Implementation strategies