Erin P. Finley
Svea Closser
Malabika Sarker
Alison B. Hamilton- 1VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Veterans Health Administration, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- 2Center for Research to Advance Community Health, Joe R. & Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States
- 3Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
- 4Center of Excellence for the Science of Implementation and Scale-Up, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
- 5Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, University of Heidelberg, Germany
- 6Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
Editorial on the Research Topic
The theory and pragmatics of power and relationships in implementation
In the early days of implementation science, a series of studies emphasized the essential role of relationships (1, 2), describing features of effective work relationships (3), as well as mechanisms by which those relationships could support effective problem-solving in high-intensity healthcare environments (4–6). In the subsequent decade, however, the field has moved away from social relations to more discrete implementation determinants, strategies, and outcomes (7–9), despite a lingering sense that relationships are an important (if ineffable) factor (10). Along with relationships, power has been largely neglected amid the wealth of implementation theories, models, and frameworks (11), notwithstanding its central importance in change processes and contexts. This Research Topic tackles these gaps in the field, presenting rich examples of implementation efforts from around the world, and specifically examining how they were impacted by local, national, and global relationships and power structures.
Birken et al. start the collection off by identifying organization theories with relevance for implementation science. They identify nine organization theories and more than 70 core constructs, many reflecting gaps in current implementation science theory. They note the particular contribution of organization theory for understanding how power, which they define as “dominance in a relationship,” operates in organizational settings. In doing so they offer tools for understanding how organizational dynamics underlie successes and failures in implementation.
Continuing to explore power, Majumdar et al. draw upon Moon's eight-element taxonomy (12) to explore the strategic deployment of power by diverse agents within the polio eradication initiative in India. Incorporating perspectives from national, regional, local, and frontline agents in the initiative, their analysis demonstrates how power “can be used, shared, or created by actors and networks,” resulting in “opportunities for less powerful actors to wield influence” in often unexpected ways.
Other papers also show that power is neither static nor incontrovertible. In their longitudinal analysis of implementing evidence-informed practices to support LGBTQ + youth in high schools, Shattuck et al. identify how participants were able to “negotiate and incorporate extant power hierarchies.” They point to the critical importance of formative research to understand “the full ecology of the implementation environment,” and to assess where societal and structural pressures may inhibit implementation, particularly in the context of efforts to increase health equity.
Narrowing in on the patient-provider encounter, Mwamba et al. examine clinical interactions occurring across public health facilities in Zambia to explore providers’ uses of discretionary power in implementing patient-centered HIV care. They find that providers worked creatively to reduce hierarchical distance and engage patients as empowered agents in their own care, noting that providers with differing roles and authority (e.g., nurses, medical officers) arrived at differing strategies for engagement based on their positionality and the resources within their control.
Collectively, these papers present an evocative set of case studies, and argue for nuanced and conceptually rich understandings of power relations. Across all of these studies, we find power as both a barrier and a resource, a challenge and a source for improvisation, a halting point and a way of getting things done.
Shifting to the question of relationships, Bartley et al. undertake an analysis of relational theory and the ERIC taxonomy of implementation strategies (9) in order to consider how interactions, exchanges, and alliances operate in each of the most widely recognized implementation strategies. They describe an assessment tool that allows for rating strategies on a continuum from highly relational to highly transactional. In doing so, they illuminate the underexamined role of relationships and power as an everyday part of implementation, classifying fully half of the ERIC strategies as highly or semi-relational in nature.
Along parallel lines, Metz et al. directly tackle the question of how relationships can support effective implementation. They present a theoretical model that (1) articulates relational and technical strategies for developing trusting relationships, and (2) hypothesizes pathways linking relationships with implementation outcomes via their influence on motivation, capability, and opportunity for change. Their model both furthers the theory of relationships in implementation science and provides guidance for establishing relationships as a foundation for implementation practice.
While developing clinical champions is widely recognized to be a versatile and effective implementation strategy (13, 14), causal pathway mechanisms for how and why champions can be so effective have remained unexplored. Building on existing literature and theory, Morena et al. identify what activities become available to champions in successful implementation relationships. They also note the importance of culture and positionality in identifying potential champions, acknowledging that “without trust and respect, clinical champions yield no influence” and “may experience irreconcilable barriers to implementing change.” Similarly, Hockett Sherlock et al., in their study of nurse-led implementation efforts in three Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals, find that champions’ understanding of both local social networks and power structures is critical to their success. Their article describes how champions “strategically leveraged the structural hierarchy” by encouraging local leaders to show support and facilitate buy-in.
Together, these papers reveal why power and relationships matter in implementation science, and strengthen the theoretical and practical foundations for understanding these dynamics. The contributions of this work come at a critical time for implementation science, as it is poised to move beyond early limitations (15). By directly examining how power and relationships occur in the determinants, strategies, and outcomes of effective implementation, these papers provide a model for implementation research that more incisively balances rigor with engagement and science with pragmatism, increasing the value of the work, and moving us toward a more grounded, relevant, and replicable field (16, 17).
Author contributions
EF, SC, MS, and AH conceptualized the Research Topic together. This editorial was written collaboratively by EF, SC, MS, and AH. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgments
EPF and ABH acknowledge the VA EMPOWER Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUE 20-028), and ABH is supported by a VA Health Services Research & Development Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 21–135).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Noël PH, Lanham HJ, Palmer RF, Leykum LK, Parchman ML. The importance of relational coordination and reciprocal learning for chronic illness care within primary care teams. Health Care Manage Rev. (2013) 38(1):20–8. doi: 10.1097/HMR.0b013e3182497262
2. Lanham HJ, McDaniel RR, Crabtree BF, Miller WL, Stange KC, Tallia AF, et al. How improving practice relationships among clinicians and nonclinicians can improve quality in primary care. J Comm J Qual Patient Saf. (2009) 35(9):457–66. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(09)35064-3
3. Finley EP, Pugh JA, Lanham HJ, Leykum L, Cornell JE, Veerapaneni P, et al. Relationship quality and patient-assessed quality of care in VA primary care clinics: development and validation of the Work Relationships Scale. Annals of Family Medicine.
4. Lanham HJ, Leykum LK, Taylor BS, McCannon CJ, Lindberg C, Lester RT. How complexity science can inform scale-up and spread in health care: understanding the role of self-organization in variation across local contexts. Soc Sci Med. (2013) 93:194–202. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.040
5. Leykum LK, Palmer R, Lanham H, Jordan M, McDaniel RR, Noël PH, et al. Reciprocal learning and chronic care model implementation in primary care: results from a new scale of learning in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. (2011) 11(1):44. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-44
6. Miller WL, McDaniel RR, Crabtree BF, Stange KC. Practice jazz: understanding variation in family practices using complexity science. J Fam Pract. (2001) 50:872–8. PMID: 11674890
7. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, Baumann AA, Hamilton AM, Santens RL. Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients. Implement Sci. (2012) 7(1):96–109. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-96
8. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. (2011) 38(2):65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
9. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. (2015) 10(1):21–35. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1
10. Miake-Lye IM, Delevan DM, Ganz DA, Mittman BS, Finley EP. Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments. BMC Health Serv Res. (2020) 20(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-4926-z
11. Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practices: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. (2012) 43(3):337–50. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024
12. Moon S. Power in global governance: an expanded typology from global health. Global Health. (2019) 15(S1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12992-019-0515-5
13. Wood K, Giannopoulos V, Louie E, Baillie A, Uribe G, Lee KS, et al. The role of clinical champions in facilitating the use of evidence-based practice in drug and alcohol and mental health settings: a systematic review. Implement Res Pract. (2020) 1:263348952095907. doi: 10.1177/2633489520959072
14. Flanagan ME, Plue L, Miller KK, Schmid AA, Myers L, Graham G, et al. A qualitative study of clinical champions in context: clinical champions across three levels of acute care. SAGE Open Med. (2018) 6:205031211879242. doi: 10.1177/2050312118792426
15. Beidas RS, Dorsey S, Lewis CC, Lyon AR, Powell BJ, Purtle J, et al. Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem. Implement Sci. (2022) 17(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01226-3
16. Peek CJ, Glasgow RE, Stange KC, Klesges LM, Purcell EP, Kessler RS. The 5 r’s: an emerging bold standard for conducting relevant research in a changing world. Ann Fam Med. (2014) 12(5):447–55. doi: 10.1370/afm.1688
Keywords: implementation science, theory, implementation practice, power, relationships, implementation strategies, global health
Citation: Finley EP, Closser S, Sarker M and Hamilton AB (2023) Editorial: The theory and pragmatics of power and relationships in implementation. Front. Health Serv. 3:1168559. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2023.1168559
Received: 17 February 2023; Accepted: 9 March 2023;
Published: 23 March 2023.
Edited and Reviewed by: Nick Sevdalis, King's College London, United Kingdom
© 2023 Finley, Closser, Sarker and Hamilton. 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.
*Correspondence: Erin P. Finley finleye@uthscsa.edu
Specialty Section: This article was submitted to Implementation Science, a section of the journal Frontiers in Health Services