@article{TEXTUAL,
      recid = {14238},
      author = {Molfenter, Todd and Ducharme, Lori and Stein, Lynda and  Belenko, Steven and Mitchell, Shannon Gwin and Watson,  Dennis P. and Aalsma, Matthew C. and Friedmann, Peter D.  and Becan, Jennifer E. and Garner, Bryan R. and Vechinski,  Jessica and Bouris, Alida and Claypool, Emily and  Elkington, Kate},
      title = {A conceptual framework for assessing implementation  strategy integrity},
      journal = {Implementation Research and Practice},
      address = {2024-12-05},
      number = {TEXTUAL},
      abstract = {&lt;p&gt;Background: The outcomes of planned implementation  efforts have been mixed, with some applications failing to  achieve the desired change or impact. While reasons for  mixed findings in implementation research are multifaceted  (e.g., Damschroder et al., 2009, 2022), how the  implementation strategy (IS) was deployed (i.e., integrity)  and its impact on the implementation outcomes of  evidence-based innovations (EBIs) is under-studied and  warrants further clarification.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Method: This article  builds on the IS fidelity and mechanisms of change  literature to create the Implementation Strategy Integrity  Framework (ISIF). The ISIF was developed by a set of  implementation science researchers in the Justice Community  Opioid Innovation Network seeking to document the role of  implementation strategies in influencing EBI outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Results: The authors identified four areas of  documentation and measurement to examine the role of IS  integrity on EBI outcomes. (a) Implementation Strategy  Rigor (i.e., adherence, dose, and quality) requires those  implementing the strategy/strategies to specify them,  document adherence to the planned strategies, quality of  execution, and any adaptations made. (b) Target User  Responsiveness documents the extent and quality of targeted  users’ participation in IS activities and how well the  target users perform their roles in conducting actions  intended by the implementation strategies. (c) Target  Mechanism Activation notes to what degree the  implementation strategies achieved the intended impact(s)  on targeted factors that facilitate EBI use. Finally, (d)  these three areas are combined with selected Inner and  Outer Context variables to explain IS integrity’s potential  moderating and mediating effects on EBI outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Conclusions: A framework that can define the integrity  of an IS and allow for its subsequent use as an explanatory  variable in EBI outcomes is necessary for better  elucidating mechanisms of action. The ISIF offers a  structured approach to operationalize, measure, and  evaluate the application and related impacts of  implementation strategies.&lt;/p&gt;},
      url = {http://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/14238},
}