The innovation is well designed and packaged, including how it is assembled, bundled, and presented.
The original CFIR elaborated further on this construct, stating that how an innovation is designed, including how it is assembled, bundled, and presented, can have an important effect on implementation outcomes (Klein et al., 2001). Innovation design includes how well the components of the innovation are defined, the effectiveness of branding (Evans & Hastings, 2008), and the quality of the materials associated with the innovation, e.g., marketing and training materials. This construct was not included in Greenhalgh et al.’s model (Greenhalgh, Robert, et al., 2004), but is included in Grol and Wensing’s list of innovation characteristics (R. P. Grol et al., 2007). When innovation components are designed to be easily accessible to users, it promotes use of the new procedures (Graham & Logan, 2004). An unreliable or poorly designed innovation will undermine success (Klein et al., 2001). When innovation quality is perceived to be poor by users, there are negative consequences for satisfaction and innovation use (Helfrich, Weiner, et al., 2007; Klein et al., 2001). More recent literature highlights that innovations that incorporate user-centered design principles, i.e., that were developed with user involvement, may be more effective than other innovations (Dopp et al., 2019; Greenhalgh et al., 2016).
Include statements regarding the quality of the materials and packaging.
- “We got approval to use the new drapes for inserting catheters but we have worked for over a year to actually get them bundled into the IV kits.”
- “The data is in there but the reporting modules don’t work.”
- “The idea was good but our money people just went and bought the cheapest version and now we have to throw half of them away.”
Exclude statements regarding the presence or absence of materials and code to Available Resources.
Exclude statements regarding the receipt of materials as an engagement strategy and code to Engaging.
Regarding quantitative measurement of this construct: In a systematic review of quantitative measures related to implementation, Lewis et al. identified two measures (Lewis, Mettert, & Lyon, 2021). Using PAPERS measurement quality criteria with an aggregate scale ranging from -9 to +36 (Lewis, Mettert, Stanick, et al., 2021), the highest score was 3, indicating the need for continued development of high-quality measures.
Note: As we become aware of measures, we will post them here. Please contact us with updates.
Dopp, A. R., Parisi, K. E., Munson, S. A., & Lyon, A. R. (2019). A glossary of user-centered design strategies for implementation experts. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 9(6), 1057–1064. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/iby119
Evans, W. D., & Hastings, G. (Eds.). (2008). Public health branding: Applying marketing for social change. Oxford University Press. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Public_Health_Branding/Voox6-zMQTsC?hl=en&gbpv=0
Graham, I. D., & Logan, J. (2004). Innovations in knowledge transfer and continuity of care. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 36(2), 89–10
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q, 82(4), 581–629.
Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S., & Janamian, T. (2016). Achieving Research Impact Through Co‐creation in Community‐Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(2), 392–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197
Grol, R. P., Bosch, M. C., Hulscher, M. E., Eccles, M. P., & Wensing, M. (2007). Planning and studying improvement in patient care: The use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q, 85(1), 93–138.
Helfrich, C. D., Weiner, B. J., McKinney, M. M., & Minasian, L. (2007). Determinants of implementation effectiveness: Adapting a framework for complex innovations. Med Care Res Rev, 64(3), 279–303.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811–824.
Lewis, C. C., Mettert, K. D., Stanick, C. F., Halko, H. M., Nolen, E. A., Powell, B. J., & Weiner, B. J. (2021). The psychometric and pragmatic evidence rating scale (PAPERS) for measure development and evaluation. Implementation Research and Practice, 2, 263348952110373. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895211037391
Lewis, C. C., Mettert, K., & Lyon, A. R. (2021). Determining the influence of intervention characteristics on implementation success requires reliable and valid measures: Results from a systematic review. Implementation Research and Practice, 2, 263348952199419. https://doi.org/10.1177/2633489521994197