1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adaptation of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Interventions: A Model and Scoping Review of Key Concepts and Tools

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Safe water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) is important for health, livelihoods, and economic development, but WaSH programs have often underdelivered on expected health benefits. Underperformance has been attributed partly to poor ability to retain effectiveness following adaptation to facilitate WaSH programs' implementation in diverse contexts. Adaptation of WaSH interventions is common but often not done systematically, leading to poor outcomes. Models and frameworks from the adaptation literature have potential to improve WaSH adaptation to facilitate implementation and retain effectiveness. However, these models and frameworks were designed in a healthcare context, and WaSH interventions are typically implemented outside traditional health system channels. The purpose of our work was to develop an adaptation model tailored specifically to the context of WaSH interventions.

          Methods

          We conducted a scoping review to identify key adaptation steps and identify tools to support systematic adaptation. To identify relevant literature, we conducted a citation search based on three recently published reviews on adaptation. We also conducted a systematic database search for examples of WaSH adaptation. We developed a preliminary model based on steps commonly identified across models in adaptation literature, and then tailored the model to the WaSH context using studies yielded by our systematic search. We compiled a list of tools to support systematic data collection and decision-making throughout adaptation from all included studies.

          Results and Conclusions

          Our model presents adaptation steps in five phases: intervention selection, assessment, preparation, implementation, and sustainment. Phases for assessment through sustainment are depicted as iterative, reflecting that once an intervention is selected, adaptation is a continual process. Our model reflects the specific context of WaSH by including steps to engage non-health and lay implementers and to build consensus among diverse stakeholders with potentially competing priorities. We build on prior adaptation literature by compiling tools to support systematic data collection and decision-making, and we describe how they can be used throughout adaptation steps. Our model is intended to improve program outcomes by systematizing adaptation processes and provides an example of how systematic adaptation can occur for interventions with health goals but that are implemented outside conventional health system channels.

          Related collections

          Most cited references91

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

            An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project

              Background Identifying, developing, and testing implementation strategies are important goals of implementation science. However, these efforts have been complicated by the use of inconsistent language and inadequate descriptions of implementation strategies in the literature. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aimed to refine a published compilation of implementation strategy terms and definitions by systematically gathering input from a wide range of stakeholders with expertise in implementation science and clinical practice. Methods Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation and clinical practice who engaged in three rounds of a modified Delphi process to generate consensus on implementation strategies and definitions. The first and second rounds involved Web-based surveys soliciting comments on implementation strategy terms and definitions. After each round, iterative refinements were made based upon participant feedback. The third round involved a live polling and consensus process via a Web-based platform and conference call. Results Participants identified substantial concerns with 31% of the terms and/or definitions and suggested five additional strategies. Seventy-five percent of definitions from the originally published compilation of strategies were retained after voting. Ultimately, the expert panel reached consensus on a final compilation of 73 implementation strategies. Conclusions This research advances the field by improving the conceptual clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of implementation strategies that can be used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Future phases of ERIC will focus on developing conceptually distinct categories of strategies as well as ratings for each strategy’s importance and feasibility. Next, the expert panel will recommend multifaceted strategies for hypothetical yet real-world scenarios that vary by sites’ endorsement of evidence-based programs and practices and the strength of contextual supports that surround the effort. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Health Serv
                Front Health Serv
                Front. Health Serv.
                Frontiers in Health Services
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2813-0146
                09 May 2022
                2022
                : 2
                : 896234
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Public Health and Environment, The Water Institute, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, NC, United States
                [2] 2Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine , Winston-Salem, NC, United States
                [3] 3Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical Center Boulevard , Winston-Salem, NC, United States
                [4] 4School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds , Leeds, United Kingdom
                [5] 5Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University , Atlanta, GA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Ann Catrine Eldh, Linköping University, Sweden

                Reviewed by: Sandul Yasobant, Indian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar (IIPHG), India; Madhumita Dobe, All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, India

                *Correspondence: Darcy M. Anderson darcy.anderson@ 123456alumni.unc.edu

                This article was submitted to Implementation Science, a section of the journal Frontiers in Health Services

                Article
                10.3389/frhs.2022.896234
                10012759
                36925880
                422b517c-dc92-4cf7-bbdb-155f8f4ac6ab
                Copyright © 2022 Anderson, Birken, Bartram and Freeman.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 14 March 2022
                : 19 April 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 92, Pages: 15, Words: 11540
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, doi 10.13039/100000066;
                Categories
                Health Services
                Review

                adaptation model,evidence-based intervention (ebi),implementation science,water,sanitation,hygiene,wash

                Comments

                Comment on this article