Organizational Readiness for Implementation: a Qualitative Assessment to Explain Survey Responses

Overview

Journal BMC Health Serv Res

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Health Services

Date 2025 Jan 8

PMID 39773649

Authors

Maria McClam

Lauren Workman

Timothy J Walker

Emanuelle M Dias

Derek W Craig

Joe R Padilla

Andrea E Lamont

Abraham Wandersman

Maria E Fernandez

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: One factor considered essential to successful implementation is organizational readiness. The purpose of this study was to explore ways to improve the measurement of organizational readiness, and in particular to refine a preliminary measure based on the Readiness = Motivation x innovation Specific Capacity x General Capacity (R = MC2) heuristic. We assessed the experiences of staff in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) designed to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) who previously completed the survey and aimed to understand their perspectives on why our data were positively skewed.

Methods: We conducted a series of qualitative interviews with FQHC employees who had previously completed the readiness survey and/or been involved with the distribution of the readiness survey. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, transcribed. Data was analyzed using an inductive approach to identify key emergent themes.

Results: Analyses revealed numerous contributors to high organizational readiness assessment scores including concerns about confidentiality, social desirability bias, knowledge of respondents about the survey content, and the survey format. Specific to the survey format, we found that survey length and response scaling likely impacted scores and the overall survey experience. Lastly, some participants shared that the tendency for high scores may reflect actual perceptions because FQHC staff are passionate, work well in teams, and typically have already worked hard to improve CRCS rates through evidence-based interventions.

Conclusion: Study findings reinforce the importance of collaborative and community-engaged survey design and the need to address the common challenges dissemination and implementation surveys may be vulnerable to. Lessons learned can be applied to other measurement work and surveys conducted across public health research. The findings will inform continued organizational readiness measure development and have implications for measurement of other factors influencing implementation.

References

Perinelli E, Gremigni P . Use of Social Desirability Scales in Clinical Psychology: A Systematic Review. J Clin Psychol. 2016; 72(6):534-51. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.22284. View

Scott V, Kenworthy T, Godly-Reynolds E, Bastien G, Scaccia J, McMickens C . The Readiness for Integrated Care Questionnaire (RICQ): An instrument to assess readiness to integrate behavioral health and primary care. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2017; 87(5):520-530. DOI: 10.1037/ort0000270. View

Domlyn A, Scott V, Livet M, Lamont A, Watson A, Kenworthy T . R = MC readiness building process: A practical approach to support implementation in local, state, and national settings. J Community Psychol. 2021; 49(5):1228-1248. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.22531. View

Weiner B . A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implement Sci. 2009; 4:67. PMC: 2770024. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-67. View

Damschroder L, Aron D, Keith R, Kirsh S, Alexander J, Lowery J . Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009; 4:50. PMC: 2736161. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50. View

Khan S, Chambers D, Neta G . Revisiting time to translation: implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in cancer control. Cancer Causes Control. 2021; 32(3):221-230. DOI: 10.1007/s10552-020-01376-z. View

Craig D, Walker T, Cuccaro P, Sharma S, Heredia N, Robertson M . Using the R = MC heuristic to understand barriers to and facilitators of implementing school-based physical activity opportunities: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):207. PMC: 10792959. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-17744-2. View

Helfrich C, Li Y, Sharp N, Sales A . Organizational readiness to change assessment (ORCA): development of an instrument based on the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci. 2009; 4:38. PMC: 2716295. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-38. View

Walker T, Brandt H, Wandersman A, Scaccia J, Lamont A, Workman L . Development of a comprehensive measure of organizational readiness (motivation × capacity) for implementation: a study protocol. Implement Sci Commun. 2020; 1(1):103. PMC: 7656510. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-020-00088-4. View

10.

Rankl F, Johnson G, Vindrola-Padros C . Examining What We Know in Relation to How We Know It: A Team-Based Reflexivity Model for Rapid Qualitative Health Research. Qual Health Res. 2021; 31(7):1358-1370. PMC: 8182295. DOI: 10.1177/1049732321998062. View

11.

Le A, Han B, Palamar J . When national drug surveys "take too long": An examination of who is at risk for survey fatigue. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021; 225:108769. PMC: 8282613. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108769. View

12.

Kitson A, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A . Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. Implement Sci. 2008; 3:1. PMC: 2235887. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1. View

13.

Braitman A, Strowger M, Shipley J, Ortman J, MacIntyre R, Bauer E . Data Quality and Study Compliance Among College Students Across 2 Recruitment Sources: Two Study Investigation. JMIR Form Res. 2022; 6(12):e39488. PMC: 9789498. DOI: 10.2196/39488. View

14.

Task Force C . Alcohol Electronic Screening and Brief Intervention: Recommendation of the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2016; 51(5):812-813. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.04.012. View

15.

Coronado G, Petrik A, Vollmer W, Taplin S, Keast E, Fields S . Effectiveness of a Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Program in Community Health Clinics: The STOP CRC Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018; 178(9):1174-1181. PMC: 6142956. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3629. View

16.

Hochheimer C, Sabo R, Krist A, Day T, Cyrus J, Woolf S . Methods for Evaluating Respondent Attrition in Web-Based Surveys. J Med Internet Res. 2016; 18(11):e301. PMC: 5141338. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6342. View

17.

Glasgow R, Riley W . Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them. Am J Prev Med. 2013; 45(2):237-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.010. View

18.

Althubaiti A . Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016; 9:211-7. PMC: 4862344. DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S104807. View

19.

Gengiah S, Connolly C, Yende-Zuma N, Barker P, Nunn A, Padayatchi N . Organizational contextual factors that predict success of a quality improvement collaborative approach to enhance integrated HIV-tuberculosis services: a sub-study of the Scaling up TB/HIV Integration trial. Implement Sci. 2021; 16(1):88. PMC: 8447673. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01155-7. View

20.

OReilly-Shah V . Factors influencing healthcare provider respondent fatigue answering a globally administered in-app survey. PeerJ. 2017; 5:e3785. PMC: 5600176. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.3785. View