Scholarlink

Background <p>Despite ongoing efforts, achieving consistent success in implementing evidence-based practices remains challenging due to diverse, context-specific implementation needs. This analysis examined the time required to implement practices currently represented in the Universal Stages of Implementation Completion<sup>®</sup> (SIC) data repository under research-led conditions (supported by researchers) versus real-world conditions (supported by purveyors or other technical support providers). The SIC measures the implementation process across three well-established phases of implementation: Pre-implementation (Phase 1), Implementation (Phase 2), and Sustainment (Phase 3).</p> Methods <p>Implementation outcomes were compared between research-led and real-world implementation conditions, representing 547 and 818 sites, respectively, across 43 program practices (i.e., interventions) in the Universal SIC repository. Descriptive analyses were conducted using data aggregated at the practice level to contrast implementation conditions. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) from multilevel models (MLM) were calculated to compare outcome variation within and between practices. MLMs examined whether implementation condition was associated with SIC scores (proportion, duration, and Final Stage reached) and key implementation process outcomes (i.e., achieving practice Start-Up and <i>C</i>ompetency in practice delivery).</p> Results <p>In aggregated descriptive analyses, research-led sites demonstrated slightly higher rates of practice Start-Up (48% vs. 42%) and Competency (41% vs. 36%), and faster pace in Phase 2 (mean difference = 322 days) than real-world sites. ICCs from unconditional multilevel models ranged from 0.31 to 0.62 across outcomes, confirming substantial variance attributable to between-practice differences. MLMs found few significant differences in outcomes between conditions. MLMs confirmed that research-led sites showed significantly shorter durations during Phase 2 (461 vs. 740 days, <i>p</i> = 0.02), and they additionally showed lower activity completion proportions in research sites (61% vs. 83%, <i>p</i> = 0.02) compared to real-world sites. MLMs found no significant differences between research-led and real-world sites in achieving program Start-Up or Competency in practice delivery.</p> Conclusions <p>While real-world sites had longer Phase 2 durations than research sites, there were no differences in achieving Start-Up or Competency between the two implementation conditions. Low success rates (less than 50% of sites achieving practice Start-Up and Competency in both conditions) highlight shared implementation challenges across contexts and support unified SIC benchmarks to inform future implementations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Implementation timelines across conditions: a universal Stages of Implementation Completion® (SIC) comparison of research-led and real-world implementations

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月2日

查看全文
  • Wambũi N. Young,
  • Joseph E. Glass,
  • Lisa Saldana

摘要

Background

Despite ongoing efforts, achieving consistent success in implementing evidence-based practices remains challenging due to diverse, context-specific implementation needs. This analysis examined the time required to implement practices currently represented in the Universal Stages of Implementation Completion® (SIC) data repository under research-led conditions (supported by researchers) versus real-world conditions (supported by purveyors or other technical support providers). The SIC measures the implementation process across three well-established phases of implementation: Pre-implementation (Phase 1), Implementation (Phase 2), and Sustainment (Phase 3).

Methods

Implementation outcomes were compared between research-led and real-world implementation conditions, representing 547 and 818 sites, respectively, across 43 program practices (i.e., interventions) in the Universal SIC repository. Descriptive analyses were conducted using data aggregated at the practice level to contrast implementation conditions. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) from multilevel models (MLM) were calculated to compare outcome variation within and between practices. MLMs examined whether implementation condition was associated with SIC scores (proportion, duration, and Final Stage reached) and key implementation process outcomes (i.e., achieving practice Start-Up and Competency in practice delivery).

Results

In aggregated descriptive analyses, research-led sites demonstrated slightly higher rates of practice Start-Up (48% vs. 42%) and Competency (41% vs. 36%), and faster pace in Phase 2 (mean difference = 322 days) than real-world sites. ICCs from unconditional multilevel models ranged from 0.31 to 0.62 across outcomes, confirming substantial variance attributable to between-practice differences. MLMs found few significant differences in outcomes between conditions. MLMs confirmed that research-led sites showed significantly shorter durations during Phase 2 (461 vs. 740 days, p = 0.02), and they additionally showed lower activity completion proportions in research sites (61% vs. 83%, p = 0.02) compared to real-world sites. MLMs found no significant differences between research-led and real-world sites in achieving program Start-Up or Competency in practice delivery.

Conclusions

While real-world sites had longer Phase 2 durations than research sites, there were no differences in achieving Start-Up or Competency between the two implementation conditions. Low success rates (less than 50% of sites achieving practice Start-Up and Competency in both conditions) highlight shared implementation challenges across contexts and support unified SIC benchmarks to inform future implementations.