Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Isadora Borges Monroy
URL	https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2505696
Publisher	Routledge
Pages	1-23
Publication	Information, Communication & Society
ISSN	1369-118X
Date	2025-05-19
Extra	_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2505696
DOI	10.1080/1369118X.2025.2505696
Accessed	2026-04-09 16:07:44
Library Catalog	Taylor and Francis+NEJM
Abstract	Can a nation remain democratic while engaging in undemocratic behaviors? I describe the concept of deputized surveillance as a central mechanism of data gathering in US policing. After outlining its inception and development across administrations, I focus on governmental efforts to insulate digital mass surveillance from political and economic costs by curtailing public deliberation of deputation. I argue that America’s pursuit of marketplace surveillance is designed to minimize, if not elude, democratic accountability. Independent of how the state subsequently uses mass surveillance data, deputizing surveillance onto firms erodes democratic rule. The historical account of America’s technological capacity development evidences how these institutional changes in law and order policies contributed to democratic backsliding. This article provides an alternative perspective to digital mass surveillance studies, focusing on (1) democracies, (2) ascribing prominent agency and motivation to the American state (e.g., surveillance deputation) against market-centric narratives (e.g., surveillance capitalism), and (3) I argue that democracies’ deputation embeds unaccountability to safeguard mass surveillance. Systematizing the government’s pursuit of whistleblowers and surveillance journalism is evidence of the resource mobilization to maintain or restore deputation’s secrecy. Prosecuting journalists reporting on surveillance undermines citizens’ ability to be informed; the information available is endogenous to the state’s willingness to chill speech, an undemocratic trait. This mechanism supports my main argument: pursuing digital mass surveillance requires states to engage in undemocratic behavior. Mass surveillance practices erode privacy rights and due process, and the presumption of innocence further erodes democracy. But that is additional and independent of its undemocratic origin.
Short Title	The surveillance complex

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Guillaume Fontaine
Author	Meagan Mooney
Author	Joshua Porat-Dahlerbruch
Author	Katherine Cahir
Author	Moriah Ellen
Author	Anne Spinewine
Author	Natalie Taylor
Author	Rachael Laritz
Author	Ève Bourbeau-Allard
Author	Jeremy M. Grimshaw
URL	https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-025-01436-5
Volume	20
Issue	1
Pages	24
Publication	Implementation Science
ISSN	1748-5908
Date	2025-05-28
Journal Abbr	Implementation Sci
DOI	10.1186/s13012-025-01436-5
Accessed	2026-03-18 23:25:38
Library Catalog	DOI.org (Crossref)
Language	en
Abstract	Background Theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) are central to implementation practice and research. Selecting one or more TMF(s) for a project remains challenging due to numerous options and limited guidance. This study aimed to (1) identify and categorize the reported purposes and attributes of TMFs, as well as the practical considerations of TMF users, and (2) synthesize these findings into a meta-framework that supports implementation practitioners and researchers in selecting TMFs. Methods A scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Medline, Embase, and CINAHL were searched to identify articles on the selection of TMFs. Articles were selected and data extracted using Covidence. Inductive thematic analysis was used to refine and categorize purposes, attributes and practical considerations. The meta-framework was developed by mapping these categories onto a sequential process, pilot-testing through case studies, and iteratively refining it based on team feedback. Results Of 9,276 records, 43 articles (2005–2024) were included. Most articles reported TMF purposes (41 articles), followed by attributes (30) and practical considerations (13). Seven distinct purposes were identified: (1) enhancing conceptual clarity, (2) anticipating change and guiding inquiry, (3) guiding the implementation process, (4) guiding identification of determinants, (5) guiding design and adaptation of strategies, (6) guiding evaluation and causal explanation, and (7) guiding interpretation and dissemination. Additionally, 24 TMF attributes were grouped into five domains: clarity and structure, scientific strength and evidence, applicability and usability, equity and sociocultural responsiveness, and system and partner integration. Ten practical considerations were grouped into three domains: team expertise and readiness, resource availability, and project fit. These findings informed the development of the Systematic Evaluation and Selection of Implementation Science Theories, Models and Frameworks (SELECT-IT) meta-framework, comprising four steps: (1) determine the purpose(s) of using TMF(s); (2) identify potential TMFs; (3) evaluate short-listed TMFs against attributes; and (4) assess practical considerations of using TMF(s) within the project context. A worked example and two user-friendly worksheets illustrate its utility. Conclusions This study advances understanding of the selection of implementation science TMFs by distinguishing inherent TMF attributes from practical considerations. The SELECT-IT meta-framework offers a structured,
Short Title	Advancing the selection of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Rosmin Esmail
Author	Heather M Hanson
Author	Jayna Holroyd-Leduc
Author	Sage Brown
Author	Lisa Strifler
Author	Sharon E Straus
Author	Daniel J. Niven
Author	Fiona M. Clement
URL	https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-020-0964-5
Volume	15
Issue	1
Pages	11
Publication	Implementation Science
ISSN	1748-5908
Date	12/2020
Journal Abbr	Implementation Sci
DOI	10.1186/s13012-020-0964-5
Accessed	2026-03-18 22:32:21
Library Catalog	DOI.org (Crossref)
Language	en
Abstract	Abstract Background Application of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users. Methods A scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics. Results Electronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews ( n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles ( n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison. Conclusions A systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions. Trial registration A protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO ( CRD42018088564 ).

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Lisa Strifler
Author	Christine Fahim
Author	Michael P. Hillmer
Author	Jan M. Barnsley
Author	Sharon E. Straus
URL	https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-024-02580-6
Volume	24
Issue	1
Pages	182
Publication	BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
ISSN	1472-6947
Date	2024-06-27
Journal Abbr	BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
DOI	10.1186/s12911-024-02580-6
Accessed	2026-03-18 22:32:19
Library Catalog	DOI.org (Crossref)
Language	en
Abstract	Abstract Background Theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are useful when implementing, evaluating and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. Yet it can be challenging to identify an appropriate TMF for an implementation project. We developed and tested the usability of an online tool to help individuals who are doing or supporting implementation practice activities to identify appropriate models and/or frameworks to inform their work. Methods We used methods guided by models and evidence on implementation science and user-centered design. Phases of tool development included applying findings from a scoping review of TMFs and interviews with 24 researchers/implementers on barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting TMFs. Based on interview findings, we categorized the TMFs by aim, stage of implementation, and target level of change to inform the tool’s algorithm. We then conducted interviews with 10 end-users to test the usability of the prototype tool and administered the System Usability Scale (SUS). Usability issues were addressed and incorporated into the tool. Results We developed Find TMF , an online tool consisting of 3–4 questions about the user’s implementation project. The tool’s algorithm matches key characteristics of the user’s project (aim, stage, target change level) with characteristics of different TMFs and presents a list of candidate models/frameworks. Ten individuals from Canada or Australia participated in usability testing (mean SUS score 84.5, standard deviation 11.4). Overall, participants found the tool to be simple, easy to use and visually appealing with a useful output of candidate models/frameworks to consider for an implementation project. Users wanted additional instruction and guidance on what to expect from the tool and how to use the information in the output table. Tool improvements included incorporating an overview figure outlining the tool steps and output, displaying the tool questions on a single page, and clarifying the available functions of the results page, including adding direct links to the glossary and to complementary tools. Conclusions Find TMF is an easy-to-use online tool that may benefit individuals who support implementation practice activities by making the vast number of models and frameworks more accessible, while also supporting a consistent approach to identifying and selecting relevant TMFs.

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Sarah A. Birken
Author	Catherine L. Rohweder
Author	Byron J. Powell
Author	Christopher M. Shea
Author	Jennifer Scott
Author	Jennifer Leeman
Author	Mary E. Grewe
Author	M. Alexis Kirk
Author	Laura Damschroder
Author	William A. Aldridge
Author	Emily R. Haines
Author	Sharon Straus
Author	Justin Presseau
URL	https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4
Volume	13
Issue	1
Pages	143
Publication	Implementation Science
ISSN	1748-5908
Date	12/2018
Journal Abbr	Implementation Sci
DOI	10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4
Accessed	2026-03-18 22:32:18
Library Catalog	DOI.org (Crossref)
Language	en
Short Title	T-CaST

Item Type	Book Section
URL	https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0166411508623869
License	https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/
Volume	52
Publisher	Elsevier
Pages	139-183
ISBN	978-0-444-70388-0
Date	1988
DOI	10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
Accessed	2026-03-04 23:54:51
Library Catalog	DOI.org (Crossref)
Language	en
Abstract	T h e results of a multi-year research program to identiJy the Jactors asaoriaied with variations i n subjective workload uizthin and betweerr different types OJ tasks are reviewed. Subjecizve evalualions oJ 10 utorkload-related factors were obtained J r o m 16 different urperzments. The ezperimental tasks included simple cogn i t i w and manual control tasks, complez laboratory and supervisory control tasks, and aircraJi simulation. Task-, behavior-, and subject-related correlates OJ subjeciive workload ezperiences wried as a Junction oJ difficulty manipulations within experiments, different sources OJ workload between experiments. and individual differences in workload definition. A multi-dimensional rating scale is proposed in which inJormation about the magnitude and sources oJ six workload-related factors are combined io derive a sensitzve and reliable estimate of workload.
Book Title	Advances in Psychology
Short Title	Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index)

Item Type	Blog Post
URL	https://www.nasa.gov/human-systems-integration-division/nasa-task-load-index-tlx/
Accessed	2026-03-04 23:52:45
Language	en-US
Abstract	The Official NASA Task Load Index (TLX) is a subjective workload assessment tool developed by Human Systems Integration Division researchers. This tool allows

Item Type	Attachment
URL	https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/tlx/downloads/TLXScale.pdf
Accessed	2026-03-04 23:52:10
Link Mode	1
MIME Type	application/pdf

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Ashley E. Sands
Author	Christine L. Borgman
Author	Sharon Traweek
Author	Laura A. Wynholds
URL	https://ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/9.2.98
Volume	9
Issue	2
Publisher	University of Edinburgh
Pages	98-110
Publication	International Journal of Digital Curation
ISSN	1746-8256
Date	2014-10-24
Journal Abbr	IJDC
DOI	10.2218/ijdc.v9i2.336
Accessed	2026-03-01 22:50:15
Library Catalog	ijdc.net
Language	en
Abstract	This article reports on the transfer of a massive scientific dataset from a national laboratory to a university library, and from one kind of workforce to another. We use the transfer of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) archive to examine the emergence of a new workforce for scientific research data management. Many individuals with diverse educational backgrounds and domain experience are involved in SDSS data management: domain scientists, computer scientists, software and systems engineers, programmers, and librarians. These types of positions have been described using terms such as research technologist, data scientist, e-science professional, data curator, and more. The findings reported here are based on semi-structured interviews, ethnographic participant observation, and archival studies from 2011-2013. The library staff conducting the data storage and archiving of the SDSS archive faced two performance problems. The preservation specialist and the system administrator worked together closely to discover and implement solutions to the slow data transfer and verification processes. The team overcame these slow-downs by problem solving, working in a team, and writing code. The library team lacked the astronomy domain knowledge necessary to meet some of their preservation and curation goals. The case study reveals the variety of expertise, experience, and individuals essential to the SDSS data management process. A variety of backgrounds and educational histories emerge in the data managers studied. Teamwork is necessary to bring disparate expertise together, especially between those with technical and domain education. The findings have implications for data management education, policy and relevant stakeholders. This article is part of continuing research on Knowledge Infrastructures.
Short Title	We’re Working On It

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Craig Lockwood
Author	Zachary Munn
Author	Kylie Porritt
URL	https://journals.lww.com/ijebh/FullText/2015/09000/Qualitative_research_synthesis__methodological.10.aspx
Volume	13
Issue	3
Publisher	LWW
Pages	179–187
Publication	JBI Evidence Implementation
Date	2015
Accessed	2026-02-27 18:21:31
Library Catalog	Google Scholar
Short Title	Qualitative research synthesis

Item Type	Presentation
Presenter	L Weaver
Presenter	Elise M Garton
Presenter	Rachel Dalrymple
Presenter	Megan Puckett
Presenter	Timothy W. Farrell
Presenter	Ken Kawamoto
Presenter	Jorie M. Butler
Place	Salt Lake City, Utah
Date	2026-02-25 2/25/26
Type	Poster
Meeting Name	University of Utah Digital Health Initiative (DHI) Annual Symposium

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Nuha Alshabani
Author	Laura Godfrey
Author	Cara Fuchs
Author	Richy Villa
Author	Daisy Perez
Author	Sarah E. Valentine
Volume	22
Issue	3
Pages	546-558
Publication	Psychological Services
ISSN	1939-148X
Date	2025-08
Journal Abbr	Psychol Serv
DOI	10.1037/ser0000941
Library Catalog	PubMed
Language	eng
Abstract	Though the implementation of science frameworks has recently been expanded to understand determinants of health equity (Woodward et al., 2021), the application of these frameworks in safety net hospital settings is new. We applied the health equity implementation framework to (a) understand the determinants of implementation and equity and (b) develop an institution-wide implementation facilitation plan for three evidence-based practices (EBPs) for posttraumatic stress disorder. We utilized researcher field notes from clinical case consultation gathered during posttraumatic stress disorder treatment implementation initiatives (cognitive processing therapy, written exposure therapy, brief skills training in affective and interpersonal regulation) at the same safety net hospital (N = 94 meetings total, from 2020 to 2023) to assess determinants of implementation and equity. We developed a qualitative codebook based on the health equity implementation framework to specify determinants and then built an implementation facilitation toolkit for multi-EBP implementation. Similar determinants were found across clinics and EBPs (e.g., provider training gaps and misperceptions about manualized treatments; inefficiencies in identification, triage, and referral pathways; patient engagement barriers related to stigma, literacy, and mistrust) with additional nuance per clinic and EBP. Institution-wide facilitation strategies were then utilized to enhance implementation and equity and focused on enhancing both access and quality of services (e.g., training and consultation, refining referral pathways) and patient engagement (e.g., culturally responsive training, consultation, and treatment delivery). Implementation science has an important role to play in enhancing health equity. Our findings illustrate how pooling determinants across clinics and treatments can help implementation scientists engage with hospital leadership and advocate for system-level implementation facilitation strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
PMID	40146572
PMCID	PMC12324972

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Susan Banda
Author	Nthanda Nkungula
Author	Isabel Kazanga Chiumia
Author	Jamie Rylance
Author	Felix Limbani
URL	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09129-9
Volume	23
Issue	1
Pages	133
Publication	BMC Health Services Research
ISSN	1472-6963
Date	2023-02-09
Journal Abbr	BMC Health Serv Res
DOI	10.1186/s12913-023-09129-9
Accessed	2026-02-18 16:48:48
Library Catalog	Springer Link
Language	en
Abstract	Perspectives of patients as clients on healthcare offer unique insights into the process and outcomes of care and can facilitate improvements in the quality of services. Differences in the tools used to measure these perspectives often reflect differences in the conceptualization of quality of care and personal experiences. This systematic review assesses the validity and reliability of instruments measuring client experiences and satisfaction with healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Short Title	Tools for measuring client experiences and satisfaction with healthcare in low- and middle-income countries

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Zarnie Khadjesari
Author	Sabah Boufkhed
Author	Silia Vitoratou
Author	Laura Schatte
Author	Alexandra Ziemann
Author	Christina Daskalopoulou
Author	Eleonora Uglik-Marucha
Author	Nick Sevdalis
Author	Louise Hull
URL	https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01027-6
Volume	15
Issue	1
Pages	66
Publication	Implementation Science
ISSN	1748-5908
Date	2020-08-18
Journal Abbr	Implementation Sci
DOI	10.1186/s13012-020-01027-6
Accessed	2026-02-18 16:46:09
Library Catalog	Springer Link
Language	en
Abstract	Implementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this endeavour is the capability of researchers, healthcare practitioners and managers to quantitatively evaluate implementation efforts using psychometrically sound instruments. To encourage and support the use of precise and accurate implementation outcome measures, this systematic review aimed to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings.
Short Title	Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings

Item Type	Blog Post
URL	https://impsciuw.org/implementation-science/research/measures/
Accessed	2026-02-18 16:44:09
Language	en-US
Abstract	Step 6: Choose Measures
Blog Title	Implementation Science at UW

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Kelsea LeBeau
Author	Erin M. Bergner
Author	Joyce W. Harris
Author	Laurie L. Novak
Author	Isaac Schlotterbeck
Author	Sunil Kripalani
Author	Lyndsay A. Nelson
URL	https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319251398627
Volume	16
Publisher	SAGE Publications Inc
Pages	21501319251398627
Publication	Journal of Primary Care & Community Health
ISSN	2150-1319
Date	2025-12-01
Journal Abbr	J Prim Care Community Health
DOI	10.1177/21501319251398627
Accessed	2026-02-18 16:14:03
Library Catalog	SAGE Journals
Language	EN
Abstract	Introduction/Objectives: Initiatives to identify and address health-related social needs (HRSN) are increasingly being implemented in clinical settings and have the potential to improve health outcomes. However, best practices for HRSN assessment and implementation are still needed. We gathered input to guide implementation of an HRSN initiative within adult primary care clinics at an academic health center. Methods: We conducted 6 focus groups to explore multiple perspectives (ie, clinicians, staff, patients, and community organization representatives) on optimal approaches to collecting HRSN data, processes for providing support to patients, and strategies for incorporating HRSN data into clinical workflows. Data were qualitatively analyzed to address the study’s research questions, resulting in themes stratified by each interest-holder group. Results: Themes centered on how the successful development and integration of HRSN initiatives require a multifaceted approach that includes dedicated staffing, standardized data collection, adequate resources for actionable support, streamlined EHR functionalities, and structured training for key personnel. HRSN initiatives must also consider local context, including the role of community organizations and their capacity to provide services that address social needs. Conclusions: Findings highlight perspectives from key interest-holders for shaping HRSN initiatives within primary care settings. We provide recommendations for developing organizational capabilities to effectively address HRSN.
Short Title	Optimizing the Collection, Integration, and Use of Health-Related Social Needs Data in the Primary Care Setting

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Rachel P. Zimmer
Author	Camelia Singletary
Author	Aylin Aguilar
Author	Emily R. Haines
Author	Allison Chandler
Author	Amresh Hanchate
Author	Kristie Foley
Author	Ashley Strahley
Author	Marc Caruana
Author	Sarah A. Birken
URL	https://doi.org/10.1177/11786329251406083
Volume	18
Publisher	SAGE Publications Ltd STM
Pages	11786329251406083
Publication	Health Services Insights
ISSN	1178-6329
Date	2025-08-01
Journal Abbr	Health�Serv�Insights
DOI	10.1177/11786329251406083
Accessed	2026-02-18 16:12:39
Library Catalog	SAGE Journals
Language	EN
Abstract	Background: Health-related social needs (HRSNs), including food insecurity, housing instability, transportation barriers, and financial strain, are increasingly recognized as critical to patient-centered care. Despite growing mandates and incentives to integrate HRSN screening and referral into routine clinical workflows, healthcare systems face significant challenges in implementing HRSN screening and referral processes at scale. Objectives: This study explores the early implementation of HRSN screening and referral across a multistate healthcare system, using the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF) and Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) Framework to examine multilevel barriers and facilitators. Design: Qualitative descriptive design. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 23) were conducted with healthcare leaders, navigators, clinicians, and community health workers (CHW), eliciting their experience with leading and implementation of HRSN screening. Results: Findings reveal that many frontline staff (including clinicians, navigators, and CHWs) reported disjointed workflows, unclear referral roles, and limited communication related to HRSN implementation. They also reported distress when screening occurred without available resources to address identified needs. CHW’s explained their pivotal but under-integrated roles, serving as relational and cultural bridges between health systems and communities. All participant cohorts identified organizational and interpersonal misalignments between implementation mandates and on-the-ground realities. Suggested strategies for improvement included role-specific training, participatory design, improved integration of CHWs into care teams, feedback loops, and locally adapted referral protocols. Conclusion: These findings reinforce the value of frontline staff knowledge and experience to ensure robust implementation of HRSNs. Aligning system-level priorities with the complex realities of care delivery is essential for realizing the promise of HRSN screening as a tool for health equity.
Short Title	From Mandate to Meaning

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	J. Eslava-Schmalbach
Author	N. Garzón-Orjuela
Author	V. Elias
Author	L. Reveiz
Author	N. Tran
Author	E. V. Langlois
URL	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-0984-4
Volume	18
Issue	1
Pages	80
Publication	International Journal for Equity in Health
ISSN	1475-9276
Date	2019-05-31
Journal Abbr	Int J Equity Health
DOI	10.1186/s12939-019-0984-4
Accessed	2026-02-18 16:02:06
Library Catalog	Springer Link
Language	en
Abstract	Implementation research is increasingly used to identify common implementation problems and key barriers and facilitators influencing efficient access to health interventions.

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Amélie Blanchet Garneau
Author	Annette J. Browne
Author	Colleen Varcoe
URL	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4602-3
Volume	19
Issue	1
Pages	764
Publication	BMC Health Services Research
ISSN	1472-6963
Date	2019-10-28
Journal Abbr	BMC Health Serv Res
DOI	10.1186/s12913-019-4602-3
Accessed	2026-02-18 15:59:17
Library Catalog	Springer Link
Language	en
Abstract	Globally, health inequities persist with effects on whole populations and the most profound effects on populations marginalized by poverty, discrimination and other forms of disadvantage. In the current neoliberal political-economic context, health inequities are produced and sustained by the inequitable distribution of social determinants of health and structural inequities such as discrimination and institutional racism. Even in the context of healthcare organizations with an explicit commitment to health equity, multiple intersecting discourses, such as ongoing efficiency discourses, and culturalist and racialized discourses, are in constant interaction with healthcare practices at the point of care and the organizational level, limiting providers’ and organizations’ capacities to address structural inequities. Attention to discourses that sustain inequities in health care is required to mitigate health inequities and related power differentials. In this paper, we present findings from a critical analysis of the relations among multiple discourses and healthcare practices within four Canadian primary health care clinics that have an explicit commitment to health equity.

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Rachel C. Shelton
Author	Ross C. Brownson
URL	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-023-01589-z
Volume	25
Issue	1
Pages	174-189
Publication	Prevention Science
ISSN	1573-6695
Date	2024-04-01
Journal Abbr	Prev Sci
DOI	10.1007/s11121-023-01589-z
Accessed	2026-02-18 15:58:03
Library Catalog	Springer Link
Language	en
Abstract	Despite investments in evidence-based interventions and Implementation Science, most evidence-based interventions are not widely or routinely adopted, delivered, or sustained in many real-world community and healthcare settings. This gap is even greater in settings and populations experiencing numerous social and structural barriers to health, with important implications for persistent patterns in health inequities. In this Viewpoint, as part of a Special Issue on Advancing the Adaptability of Chronic Disease Prevention and Management through Implementation Science, we outline seven calls to action for the field of Implementation Science, with the goal of encouraging researchers, practitioners, and funders to be more intentional and accountable in applying Implementation Science to have greater impact on promoting health equity. Calls to action include (1) enhance public health, community, and multi-sectoral partnerships to promote health equity and equitable implementation; (2) revisit and build the evidence base needed to promote health equity and impact at multiple levels; (3) prioritize focus on policy development, dissemination, and implementation; (4) be agile and responsive in application of Implementation Science frameworks, processes, and methods; (5) identify and redefine meaningful metrics for equity and impact; (6) disseminate scientific evidence and research to a diverse range of partners and potential beneficiaries; and (7) extend focus on de-implementation, mis-implementation, and sustainability which are central to enhancing health equity. Additionally, we outline why a focus on prevention and public health is essential to making progress towards health equity in Implementation Science, summarize important advancements that the field has made towards making equity more foundational, and pose important research questions to enhance equitable impact of work in this area.
Short Title	Enhancing Impact

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Ross C. Brownson
Author	Shiriki K. Kumanyika
Author	Matthew W. Kreuter
Author	Debra Haire-Joshu
URL	https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01097-0
Volume	16
Issue	1
Pages	28
Publication	Implementation Science
ISSN	1748-5908
Date	2021-03-19
Journal Abbr	Implementation Sci
DOI	10.1186/s13012-021-01097-0
Accessed	2026-02-18 15:56:20
Library Catalog	Springer Link
Language	en
Abstract	There is growing urgency to tackle issues of equity and justice in the USA and worldwide. Health equity, a framing that moves away from a deficit mindset of what society is doing poorly (disparities) to one that is positive about what society can achieve, is becoming more prominent in health research that uses implementation science approaches. Equity begins with justice—health differences often reflect societal injustices. Applying the perspectives and tools of implementation science has potential for immediate impact to improve health equity.

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Ana A. Baumann
Author	Leopoldo J. Cabassa
URL	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4975-3
Volume	20
Issue	1
Pages	190
Publication	BMC Health Services Research
ISSN	1472-6963
Date	2020-03-12
Journal Abbr	BMC Health Serv Res
DOI	10.1186/s12913-020-4975-3
Accessed	2026-02-18 15:56:09
Library Catalog	Springer Link
Language	en
Abstract	Research has generated valuable knowledge in identifying, understanding, and intervening to address inequities in the delivery of healthcare, yet these inequities persist. The best available interventions, programs and policies designed to address inequities in healthcare are not being adopted in routine practice settings. Implementation science can help address this gap by studying the factors, processes, and strategies at multiple levels of a system of care that influence the uptake, use, and the sustainability of these programs for vulnerable populations. We propose that an equity lens can help integrate the fields of implementation science and research that focuses on inequities in healthcare delivery.

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Eva N. Woodward
Author	Rajinder Sonia Singh
Author	Phiwinhlanhla Ndebele-Ngwenya
Author	Andrea Melgar Castillo
Author	Kelsey S. Dickson
Author	JoAnn E. Kirchner
URL	https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43058-021-00146-5
Volume	2
Issue	1
Pages	61
Publication	Implementation Science Communications
ISSN	2662-2211
Date	12/2021
Journal Abbr	Implement Sci Commun
DOI	10.1186/s43058-021-00146-5
Accessed	2026-02-18 15:53:05
Library Catalog	DOI.org (Crossref)
Language	en
Abstract	Abstract Background Due to striking disparities in the implementation of healthcare innovations, it is imperative that researchers and practitioners can meaningfully use implementation determinant frameworks to understand why disparities exist in access, receipt, use, quality, or outcomes of healthcare. Our prior work documented and piloted the first published adaptation of an existing implementation determinant framework with health equity domains to create the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We recommended integrating these three health equity domains to existing implementation determinant frameworks: (1) culturally relevant factors of recipients, (2) clinical encounter or patient-provider interaction, and (3) societal context (including but not limited to social determinants of health). This framework was developed for healthcare and clinical practice settings. Some implementation teams have begun using the Health Equity Implementation Framework in their evaluations and asked for more guidance. Methods We completed a consensus process with our authorship team to clarify steps to incorporate a health equity lens into an implementation determinant framework. Results We describe steps to integrate health equity domains into implementation determinant frameworks for implementation research and practice. For each step, we compiled examples or practical tools to assist implementation researchers and practitioners in applying those steps. For each domain, we compiled definitions with supporting literature, showcased an illustrative example, and suggested sample quantitative and qualitative measures. Conclusion Incorporating health equity domains within implementation determinant frameworks may optimize the scientific yield and equity of implementation efforts by assessing and ideally addressing implementation and equity barriers simultaneously. These practical guidance and tools provided can assist implementation researchers and practitioners to concretely capture and understand barriers and facilitators to implementation disparities.

Item Type	Journal Article
Author	Connor Drake
Author	Heather Batchelder
Author	Tyler Lian
Author	Meagan Cannady
Author	Morris Weinberger
Author	Howard Eisenson
Author	Emily Esmaili
Author	Allison Lewinski
Author	Leah L. Zullig
Author	Amber Haley
Author	David Edelman
Author	Christopher M. Shea
URL	https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-021-06991-3
Volume	21
Issue	1
Pages	975
Publication	BMC Health Services Research
ISSN	1472-6963
Date	12/2021
Journal Abbr	BMC Health Serv Res
DOI	10.1186/s12913-021-06991-3
Accessed	2026-02-18 15:46:54
Library Catalog	DOI.org (Crossref)
Language	en
Abstract	Abstract Background Screening in primary care for unmet individual social needs (e.g., housing instability, food insecurity, unemployment, social isolation) is critical to addressing their deleterious effects on patients’ health outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply an implementation science framework to identify implementation factors and best practices for social needs screening and response. Methods Guided by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF), we collected qualitative data from clinicians and patients to evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementing the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients’ Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), a standardized social needs screening and response protocol, in a federally qualified health center. Eligible patients who received the PRAPARE as a standard of care were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. We also obtained front-line clinician perspectives in a semi-structured focus group. HEIF domains informed a directed content analysis. Results Patients and clinicians (i.e., case managers) reported implementation barriers and facilitators across multiple domains (e.g., clinical encounters, patient and provider factors, inner context, outer context, and societal influence). Implementation barriers included structural and policy level determinants related to resource availability, discrimination, and administrative burden. Facilitators included evidence-based clinical techniques for shared decision making (e.g., motivational interviewing), team-based staffing models, and beliefs related to alignment of the PRAPARE with patient-centered care. We found high levels of patient acceptability and opportunities for adaptation to increase equitable adoption and reach. Conclusion Our results provide practical insight into the implementation of the PRAPARE or similar social needs screening and response protocols in primary care at the individual encounter, organizational, community, and societal levels. Future research should focus on developing discrete implementation strategies to promote social needs screening and response, and associated multisector care coordination to improve health outcomes and equity for vulnerable and marginalized patient populations.
Short Title	Implementation of social needs screening in primary care