Implementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers. Theoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks). This article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited “how-to” support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.

/pdf/making-sense-of-implementation-theories-models-and-9m1o7axeoi.pdf

Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes

Implementing new practices requires changes in the behaviour of relevant actors, and this is facilitated by understanding of the determinants of current and desired behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed by a collaboration of behavioural scientists and implementation researchers who identified theories relevant to implementation and grouped constructs from these theories into domains. The collaboration aimed to provide a comprehensive, theory-informed approach to identify determinants of behaviour. The first version was published in 2005, and a subsequent version following a validation exercise was published in 2012. This guide offers practical guidance for those who wish to apply the TDF to assess implementation problems and support intervention design. It presents a brief rationale for using a theoretical approach to investigate and address implementation problems, summarises the TDF and its development, and describes how to apply the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Examples from the implementation research literature are presented to illustrate relevant methods and practical considerations. Researchers from Canada, the UK and Australia attended a 3-day meeting in December 2012 to build an international collaboration among researchers and decision-makers interested in the advancing use of the TDF. The participants were experienced in using the TDF to assess implementation problems, design interventions, and/or understand change processes. This guide is an output of the meeting and also draws on the authors’ collective experience. Examples from the implementation research literature judged by authors to be representative of specific applications of the TDF are included in this guide. We explain and illustrate methods, with a focus on qualitative approaches, for selecting and specifying target behaviours key to implementation, selecting the study design, deciding the sampling strategy, developing study materials, collecting and analysing data, and reporting findings of TDF-based studies. Areas for development include methods for triangulating data, e.g. from interviews, questionnaires and observation and methods for designing interventions based on TDF-based problem analysis. We offer this guide to the implementation community to assist in the application of the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Benefits of using the TDF include the provision of a theoretical basis for implementation studies, good coverage of potential reasons for slow diffusion of evidence into practice and a method for progressing from theory-based investigation to intervention.

/pdf/a-guide-to-using-the-theoretical-domains-framework-of-2kpo61d5k8.pdf

A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems

/pdf/about-the-national-institute-for-health-and-care-excellence-4zmiguft2a.pdf

About the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence - NICE.

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

BACKGROUND
The rapidly rising prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) poses major challenges to the efficient, timely and sustainable provision of diabetes care.


AIM
To assess whether the implementation of a novel, digital model of care would provide improved efficiency without compromising clinical outcomes in a cohort of women with GDM.


METHODS
A digital model of care was developed, implemented and evaluated using a prospective pre-post study design in 2020-21 at a quaternary centre. We introduced six culturally and linguistically tailored educational videos, home delivery of equipment and prescriptions, and a smartphone app-to-clinician portal for glycaemic review and management. Outcomes were prospectively recorded by an electronic medical record. Associations between model of care and maternal and neonatal characteristics and birth outcomes were examined for all women and separately by treatment received (diet, metformin, insulin).


RESULTS
Comparing pre-implementation (n = 598) and post-implementation (n = 337) groups, maternal (onset, mode of birth) and neonatal (birthweight, large for gestational age (LGA), nursery admission) clinical outcomes confirmed that the novel model of care was similar to standard, traditional care. Minor birthweight variation was noted when separated by treatment type (diet, metformin, insulin).


CONCLUSION
This pragmatic service redesign demonstrates reassuring clinical outcomes in a culturally diverse GDM cohort. Despite the lack of randomisation, this intervention has potential generalisability for GDM care and important key learnings for service redesign in the digital era.

GDM care re-imagined: Maternal and neonatal outcomes following a major model of care change for gestational diabetes mellitus at a large metropolitan hospital.

Nutrition issues for the mental health patient population

BACKGROUND
Diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in a pregnancy has a significant impact on health service resources and represents a substantial financial and time impost on women.


AIM
To describe a cost-minimisation analysis conducted following the demonstration of clinically equivalent care of women using a novel, digital model for GDM management, compared with conventional care.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
A pre-implementation model of care was compared with the post-implementation model of care which included systematic development and delivery of education videos, use of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 'M♡THer' smart phone app/portal and a dramatically reduced schedule of visits. The Mater Mothers' Hospital Brisbane cares for approximately 1200 women with GDM per annum, on which the cost estimates were based. Service costs were estimated using the resource method, where resource volumes and costs were gathered from experts within the health service. Patient costs were estimated using results from a short survey completed by a cohort of the study population.


RESULTS
Health service costs showed a modest saving of AU$17 441.78 (US$12 158.92) in the intervention group over a 12-month period. Cost savings for the woman were estimated at $566.56 (US$394.96) per patient after accounting for lost wages, childcare expenses, and travel expenses avoided. This reduction led to an overall saving of $679 872 (US$473 948.82) for the cohort of 1200 women, primarily due to the reduction in face-to-face visits.


CONCLUSION
Re-imagining GDM patient care by introducing a novel, digital-based GDM model of care has substantial positive cost implications for patients.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/ajo.13695

Gestational diabetes mellitus care re-imagined - A cost-minimisation analysis: Cost savings from a tertiary hospital, using a novel, digital-based gestational diabetes management model.

Shelley A. Wilkinson

Papers

GDM care re-imagined: Maternal and neonatal outcomes following a major model of care change for gestational diabetes mellitus at a large metropolitan hospital.

Nutrition issues for the mental health patient population

Gestational diabetes mellitus care re-imagined - A cost-minimisation analysis: Cost savings from a tertiary hospital, using a novel, digital-based gestational diabetes management model.