Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches

Presseau, JustinKasperavicius, DanielleRodrigues, Isabel B.Braimoh, JessicaChambers, AndreaEtherington, ColeGiangregorio, LoraGibbs, Jenna C.Giguere, AnikGraham, Ian D.Hankivsky, OlenaHoens, Alison M.Holroyd-Leduc, JaynaKelly, ChristineMoore, Julia E.Ponzano, MatteoSharma, MalikaSibley, Kathryn M.Straus, Sharon2022-08-072022-08-072022-08-04BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2022 Aug 04;22(1):212http://hdl.handle.net/1880/114918https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/44683Abstract Background Models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems of power and oppression can shape implementation. There is value in enhancing how MTFs in implementation research and practice account for these intersecting factors. Given the large number of MTFs, we sought to identify exemplar MTFs that represent key implementation phases within which to embed an intersectional perspective. Methods We used a five-step process to prioritize MTFs for enhancement with an intersectional lens. We mapped 160 MTFs to three previously prioritized phases of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. Next, 17 implementation researchers/practitioners, MTF experts, and intersectionality experts agreed on criteria for prioritizing MTFs within each KTA phase. The experts used a modified Delphi process to agree on an exemplar MTF for each of the three prioritized KTA framework phases. Finally, we reached consensus on the final MTFs and contacted the original MTF developers to confirm MTF versions and explore additional insights. Results We agreed on three criteria when prioritizing MTFs: acceptability (mean = 3.20, SD = 0.75), applicability (mean = 3.82, SD = 0.72), and usability (median = 4.00, mean = 3.89, SD = 0.31) of the MTF. The top-rated MTFs were the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care for the ‘Identify the problem’ phase (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.31), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for the ‘Assess barriers/facilitators to knowledge use’ phase (mean = 5.79, SD = 1.12), and the Behaviour Change Wheel for the ‘Select, tailor, implement interventions’ phase (mean = 6.36, SD = 1.08). Conclusions Our interdisciplinary team engaged in a rigorous process to reach consensus on MTFs reflecting specific phases of the implementation process and prioritized each to serve as an exemplar in which to embed intersectional approaches. The resulting MTFs correspond with specific phases of the KTA framework, which itself may be useful for those seeking particular MTFs for particular KTA phases. This approach also provides a template for how other implementation MTFs could be similarly considered in the future. Trial registration Open Science Framework Registration: osf.io/qgh64.Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approachesJournal Article2022-08-07enThe Author(s)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01682-x