Background: Recent reviews of the use and application of implementation frameworks in implementation efforts highlight the limited use of frameworks, despite the value in doing so. As such, this article aims to provide recommendations to enhance the application of implementation frameworks, for implementation researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners. Discussion: Ideally, an implementation framework, or multiple frameworks should be used prior to and throughout an implementation effort. This includes both in implementation science research studies and in real-world implementation projects. To guide this application, outlined are ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks across the implementation process. The recommendations have been written in the rough chronological order of an implementation effort; however, we understand these may vary depending on the project or context: (1) select a suitable framework(s), (2) establish and maintain community stakeholder engagement and partnerships, (3) define issue and develop research or evaluation questions and hypotheses, (4) develop an implementation mechanistic process model or logic model, (5) select research and evaluation methods (6) determine implementation factors/determinants, (7) select and tailor, or develop, implementation strategy(s), (8) specify implementation outcomes and evaluate implementation, (9) use a framework(s) at micro level to conduct and tailor implementation, and (10) write the proposal and report. Ideally, a framework(s) would be applied to each of the recommendations. For this article, we begin by discussing each recommendation within the context of frameworks broadly, followed by specific examples using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Summary: The use of conceptual and theoretical frameworks provides a foundation from which generalizable implementation knowledge can be advanced. On the contrary, superficial use of frameworks hinders being able to use, learn from, and work sequentially to progress the field. Following the provided ten recommendations, we hope to assist researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners to improve the use of implementation science frameworks.

Cervical cancer is the second commonest cancer in women worldwide and the commonest cancer among women in Uganda. Annual cervical screening is recommended for women living with HIV for early detection of abnormal cervical changes, however uptake remains grossly limited. This study assessed factors associated with cervical screening uptake among HIV infected women at Mildmay Uganda where cervical screening using Visual inspection with acetic acid and iodine (VIA and VILI) was integrated into HIV care since July 2009. Eighteen (18) in-depth interviews with HIV infected women and 6 key informant interviews with health care providers were conducted in April 2013 to assess client, health care provider and facility-related factors that affect cervical screening uptake. In-depth interview respondents included six HIV infected women in each of the following categories; women who had never screened, those who had screened once and missed follow-up annual screening, and those who had fully adhered to the annual screening schedule. Data was analyzed using content analysis method. Motivations for cervical cancer screening included the need for comprehensive assessment, diagnosis, and management of all ailments to ensure good health, fear of consequences of cervical cancer, suspicion of being at risk and the desire to maintain a good relationship with health care workers. The following factors negatively impacted on uptake of cervical screening: Myths and misconceptions such as the belief that a woman’s ovaries and uterus could be removed during screening, fear of pain associated with cervical screening, fear of undressing and the need for women to preserve their privacy, low perceived cervical cancer risk, shortage of health workers to routinely provide cervical cancer education and screening, and competing priorities for both provider and patient time. Major barriers to repeat screening included limited knowledge and appreciation of the need for repeat screening, and lack of reminders. These findings highlight the need for client-centered counseling and support to overcome fears and misconceptions, and to innovatively address the human resource barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening among HIV infected women.

Polypharmacy has not been investigated in patients living with HIV in developing countries. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of polypharmacy, the factors associated with polypharmacy and whether polypharmacy was associated with adverse effects among older adults on anti-retroviral therapy (ART). Cross-sectional study in older adults aged 50 and over on ART attending an outpatient HIV/AIDS care centre in Uganda. Demographic and clinical data collected on number and type of medications plus supplements, possible medication related side-effects, comorbidity, frailty, cognitive impairment, current CD4 count and viral load. Of 411 participants, 63 (15.3, 95% C.I. 11.9, 18.8) had polypharmacy (≥ 4 non- HIV medications). In multivariate analyses, polypharmacy was associated with one or more hospitalisations in the last year (Prevalence Ratio PR = 1.8, 95% C.I. 1.1, 3.1, p = 0.02), prescription by an internist (PR = 3.6, 95% C.I. 1.3, 10.5, p = 0.02) and frailty index scores of 5 to 6 (PR = 10.6, 95% C.I. 1.4, 78, p = 0.02), and 7 or more (PR = 17.4, 95% C.I. 2.4, 126.5, p = 0.005). Polypharmacy was not associated with frequency and severity of possible medication related side effects and falls. Polypharmacy is common among older HIV infected patients in sub-Saharan Africa. It’s more prevalent among frail people, who have been in hospital in the last year and who have been seen by an internist. We found no evidence that polypharmacy results in any harm but this is worth exploring further.

The Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases comprises the majority of the world’s public research funding agencies. It is focussed on implementation research to tackle the burden of chronic diseases in low- and middle-income countries and amongst vulnerable populations in high-income countries. In its inaugural research call, 15 projects were funded, focussing on lowering blood pressure-related disease burden. In this study, we describe a reflexive mapping exercise to identify the behaviour change strategies undertaken in each of these projects. Using the Behaviour Change Wheel framework, each team rated the capability, opportunity and motivation of the various actors who were integral to each project (e.g. community members, non-physician health workers and doctors in projects focussed on service delivery). Teams then mapped the interventions they were implementing and determined the principal policy categories in which those interventions were operating. Guidance was provided on the use of Behaviour Change Wheel to support consistency in responses across teams. Ratings were iteratively discussed and refined at several group meetings. There was marked variation in the perceived capabilities, opportunities and motivation of the various actors who were being targeted for behaviour change strategies. Despite this variation, there was a high degree of synergy in interventions functions with most teams utilising complex interventions involving education, training, enablement, environmental restructuring and persuasion oriented strategies. Similar policy categories were also targeted across teams particularly in the areas of guidelines, communication/marketing and service provision with few teams focussing on fiscal measures, regulation and legislation. The large variation in preparedness to change behaviour amongst the principal actors across these projects suggests that the interventions themselves will be variably taken up, despite the similarity in approaches taken. The findings highlight the importance of contextual factors in driving success and failure of research programmes. Forthcoming outcome and process evaluations from each project will build on this exploratory work and provide a greater understanding of factors that might influence scale-up of intervention strategies.