Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Implement Sci. 2013 May 10;8:51. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-51.

Evaluation of a large-scale weight management program using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR).

Author information

1
HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (152), Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA. Laura.Damschroder@va.gov

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

In the United States, as in many other parts of the world, the prevalence of overweight/obesity is at epidemic proportions in the adult population and even higher among Veterans. To address the high prevalence of overweight/obesity among Veterans, the MOVE!(®) weight management program was disseminated nationally to Veteran Affairs (VA) medical centers. The objective of this paper is two-fold: to describe factors that explain the wide variation in implementation of MOVE!; and to illustrate, step-by-step, how to apply a theory-based framework using qualitative data.

METHODS:

Five VA facilities were selected to maximize variation in implementation effectiveness and geographic location. Twenty-four key stakeholders were interviewed about their experiences in implementing MOVE!. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide collection and analysis of qualitative data. Constructs that most strongly influence implementation effectiveness were identified through a cross-case comparison of ratings.

RESULTS:

Of the 31 CFIR constructs assessed, ten constructs strongly distinguished between facilities with low versus high program implementation effectiveness. The majority (six) were related to the inner setting: networks and communications; tension for change; relative priority; goals and feedback; learning climate; and leadership engagement. One construct each, from intervention characteristics (relative advantage) and outer setting (patient needs and resources), plus two from process (executing and reflecting) also strongly distinguished between high and low implementation. Two additional constructs weakly distinguished, 16 were mixed, three constructs had insufficient data to assess, and one was not applicable. Detailed descriptions of how each distinguishing construct manifested in study facilities and a table of recommendations is provided.

CONCLUSIONS:

This paper presents an approach for using the CFIR to code and rate qualitative data in a way that will facilitate comparisons across studies. An online Wiki resource (http://www.wiki.cfirwiki.net) is available, in addition to the information presented here, that contains much of the published information about the CFIR and its constructs and sub-constructs. We hope that the described approach and open access to the CFIR will generate wide use and encourage dialogue and continued refinement of both the framework and approaches for applying it.

PMID:
23663819
PMCID:
PMC3656778
DOI:
10.1186/1748-5908-8-51
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center