Implementation Science Research Examining the Integration of Evidence-Based Practices Into HIV Prevention and Clinical Care: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study Using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) model is an implementation framework for studying the integration of evidence-based practices (EBPs) into real-world settings. The EPIS model conceptualizes implementation as a process starting with the earliest stages of problem recognition (Exploration) through the continued use of an EBP in a given clinical context (Sustainment). This is the first implementation science (IS) study of the integration of EBPs into adolescent HIV prevention and care settings. OBJECTIVE: This protocol (ATN 153 EPIS) is part of the Scale It Up program, a research program administered by the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions (ATN), described in this issue by Naar et al. The EPIS study is a descriptive study of the uptake of 4 EBPs within the Scale It Up program. The goal of EPIS is to understand the barriers and facilitators associated with the Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment of EBPs into HIV prevention and clinical care settings. METHODS: The EPIS study is a convergent parallel mixed-methods IS study. Key implementation stakeholders, that is, clinical care providers and leaders, located within 13 ATN sites across the United States will complete a qualitative interview conducted by telephone and Web-based surveys at 3 key implementation stages. The Preparation assessment occurs before EBP implementation, Implementation occurs immediately after sites finish implementation activities and prepare for sustainment, and Sustainment occurs 1 year postimplementation. Assessments will examine stakeholders' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to EBP implementation within their clinical site as outlined by the EPIS framework. RESULTS: The EPIS baseline period began in June 2017 and concluded in May 2018; analysis of the baseline data is underway. To date, 153 stakeholders have completed qualitative interviews, and 91.5% (140/153) completed the quantitative survey. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge gained from the EPIS study will strengthen the implementation and sustainment of EBPs in adolescent prevention and clinical care contexts by offering insights into the barriers and facilitators of successful EBP implementation and sustainment in real-world clinical contexts. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/11202.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.144 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".