Innovation Recipients

Individuals who are directly or indirectly receiving the innovation.

Innovation Recipients include anyone expected to benefit from implementation of the innovation. It is important to center recipients to help ensure their needs (see Process: Assessing Needs) are prioritized (see Inner Setting: Culture-Recipient-centeredness) (Dy et al., 2015; Godbee et al., 2020). Types of recipients have included, but are not limited to, community health workers, outreach teams, nurses, community members within communities (Naidoo et al., 2018), teachers, parents, students, food service staff (Norman et al., 2015; Okamoto et al., 2020; Tabak & Moreland-Russell, 2015) in schools, or farmers and extension service individuals in farming (Tinc et al., 2018). Other terms used for Innovation Recipients have included consumers or clients. Innovation Recipients are determined by the goals and focus for implementing an innovation.

The original CFIR acknowledged that within healthcare, many theories of research uptake or implementation acknowledge the importance of accounting for patient (recipient) characteristics (Feldstein & Glasgow, 2008; Graham & Logan, 2004; Rycroft-Malone, Kitson, et al., 2002). Users are strongly encouraged to use the published CFIR Outcomes Addendum to guide conceptualization of this role because recipients can play multiple roles, e.g., implementation team members, in addition to receiving the innovation (Damschroder et al., 2022).

Qualitative coding guidelines that are aligned with the Updated CFIR will be added in the future.

As we become aware of measures, we will post them here. Please contact us with updates.

Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Opra Widerquist, M. A., & Lowery, J. (2022). Conceptualizing outcomes for use with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): The CFIR Outcomes Addendum. Implementation Science, 17(1), 7.

Dy, S. M., Ashok, M., Wines, R. C., & Rojas Smith, L. (2015). A Framework to Guide Implementation Research for Care Transitions Interventions: Journal for Healthcare Quality, 37(1), 41–54.

Feldstein, A. C., & Glasgow, R. E. (2008). A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf, 34(4), 228–243.

Godbee, K., Gunn, J., Lautenschlager, N. T., & Palmer, V. J. (2020). Refined conceptual model for implementing dementia risk reduction: Incorporating perspectives from Australian general practice. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 26(3), 247.

Graham, I. D., & Logan, J. (2004). Innovations in knowledge transfer and continuity of care. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 36(2), 89–103.

Naidoo, N., Zuma, N., Khosa, N. S., Marincowitz, G., Railton, J., Matlakala, N., Jobson, G. A., Igumbor, J. O., McIntyre, J. A., Struthers, H. E., & Peters, R. P. H. (2018). Qualitative assessment of facilitators and barriers to HIV programme implementation by community health workers in Mopani district, South Africa. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0203081.

Norman, Å., Nyberg, G., Elinder, L. S., & Berlin, A. (2015). One size does not fit all–qualitative process evaluation of the Healthy School Start parental support programme to prevent overweight and obesity among children in disadvantaged areas in Sweden. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 37.

Okamoto, S. K., Helm, S., Chin, S. K., Hata, J., Hata, E., & Okamura, K. H. (2020). The implementation of a culturally grounded, school‐based, drug prevention curriculum in rural Hawai‘i. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(4), 1085–1099.

Rycroft-Malone, J., Kitson, G., Harvey, B., McCormack, K., Seers, A. T., & C. Estabrooks. (2002). Ingredients for change: Revisiting a conceptual framework. (Viewpoint). Quality and Safety in Health Care, 11(2), 174–180.

Tabak, R. G., & Moreland-Russell, S. (2015). Food Service Perspectives on National School Lunch Program Implementation. Health Behavior and Policy Review, 2(5), 362–371.

Tinc, P. J., Gadomski, A., Sorensen, J. A., Weinehall, L., Jenkins, P., & Lindvall, K. (2018). Applying the Consolidated Framework for implementation research to agricultural safety and health: Barriers, facilitators, and evaluation opportunities. Safety Science, 107, 99–108.