The construct of context can be considered a critical area related to various challenges associated with contextual factors at multiple levels. The practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) is an implementation model used to conceptualize key obstacles (1, 2). This framework enables to consideration of both external and internal contexts, which are environment, policy, resources, incentives, and multi-level organizational characteristics, and implementation and sustainability infrastructure, respectively (3). Therefore, this framework’s advantages are the possibility to identify and access key factors through planning, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination.
The other IS model, which is the dynamic sustainability framework (DSF), considers the limit to which previously implemented interventions are sustained over time. From this point of view, the changes exist in the broader system that establishes the context (4). DSF centers on three major elements, which are the intervention itself, its context, and the more comprehensive ecological model within which the changes exist (5). Therefore, in comparison to PRISM, this model focused on omnipresent change and the process of optimizing the relationship between the intervention and a delivery context (6). From this perspective, the first framework is limited to planning, implementing, and maintaining, with the advantage of identifying context factors. However, it does not enable an expansion of the consideration of changes to the broader level.
RE-AIM is the third most widely adopted IS framework, concentrated on intervention and implementation design, planning, and evaluation on a short-term basis (7). This model has two dimensions, which are individual-level and staff/setting-level, with a focus on measuring and considering “maintenance” (8). PRISM, derived from that model, defines conceptual factors and adds them to RE-AIM (9). It results in the older model’s outcomes influencing and mutual complimenting, which is beneficial for research. Therefore, PRISM’s advantage is the key contextual factor defining, and limitation is the other intervention effectiveness consideration levels.
Reference List
- Marina M, Borsika R, Russell G, Roman A, Chelsea L, Heather G, et al. Using the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) to qualitatively assess multilevel contextual factors to help plan, implement, evaluate, and disseminate health services programs. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2019 Dec;9(6): 1002-1011.
- Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnik NA, Rabin B, Aarons GA. A systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci. 2019 Jan;14(1): 1.
- Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015 Apr;10(53).
- Skolarus TA, Tabak RG, Sales AE. Theories, frameworks, and models in implementation science in cancer. In: Chambers DA, Vinson CA, Norton WE, eds. Advancing the Science of Implementation Across the Cancer Continuum. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018.
- Strifler L, Cardoso R, McGowan J. Scoping review identifies a significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Aug;100: 92-102.
- Jodi H, Boriska R, Russell G. Dissemination and Implementation Science in Primary Care Research and Practice: Contributions and Opportunities. JABFM. 2018;31: 466-478.
- Rachel S, David C, Russell G. An Extension of RE-AIM to Enhance Sustainability: Addressing Dynamic Context and Promoting Health Equity Over Time. Front Public Health, 2020 May;8(134).
- Jodi H, Borsika R, Russell G. Qualitative approaches to use of the RE-AIM framework: rationale and methods. BMC, 2018 March;18(177).
- Ashlinn Q, Gila N, Rachel S, Christopher O, Suzanne L, Kenneth S, et al. Adapting and Operationalizing the RE-AIM Framework for Implementation Science in Environmental Health: Clean Fuel Cooking Programs in Low Resource Countries. Front Public Health, 2019 Dec;7(389).