Background: Designing intervention and implementation strategies with careful consideration of context is essential for successful implementation science projects. Although the importance of context has been emphasized and methodology for its analysis is emerging, researchers have little guidance on how to plan, perform, and report contextual analysis. Therefore, our aim was to describe the Basel Approach for coNtextual ANAlysis (BANANA) and to demonstrate its application on an ongoing multi-site, multiphase implementation science project to develop/adapt, implement, and evaluate an integrated care model in allogeneic SteM cell transplantatIon facILitated by eHealth (the SMILe project). Methods: BANANA builds on guidance for assessing context by Stange and Glasgow (Contextual factors: the importance of considering and reporting on context in research on the patient-centered medical home, 2013). Based on a literature review, BANANA was developed in ten discussion sessions with implementation science experts and a medical anthropologist to guide the SMILe project’s contextual analysis. BANANA’s theoretical basis is the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework. Working from an ecological perspective, CICI acknowledges contextual dynamics and distinguishes between context and setting (the implementation’s physical location). Results: BANANA entails six components: (1) choose a theory, model, or framework (TMF) to guide the contextual analysis; (2) use empirical evidence derived from primary and/or secondary data to identify relevant contextual factors; (3) involve stakeholders throughout contextual analysis; (4) choose a study design to assess context; (5) determine contextual factors’ relevance to implementation strategies/outcomes and intervention co-design; and (6) report findings of contextual analysis following appropriate reporting guidelines. Partly run simultaneously, the first three components form a basis both for the identification of relevant contextual factors and for the next components of the BANANA approach. Discussion: Understanding of context is indispensable for a successful implementation science project. BANANA provides much-needed methodological guidance for contextual analysis. In subsequent phases, it helps researchers apply the results to intervention development/adaption and choices of contextually tailored implementation strategies. For future implementation science projects, BANANA’s principles will guide researchers first to gather relevant information on their target context, then to inform all subsequent phases of their implementation science project to strengthen every part of their work and fulfill their implementation goals.

Background: Medication adherence to immunosuppressants in allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) is essential to achieve favorable clinical outcomes (e.g. control of Graft-versus-Host Disease). Over 600 apps supporting medication adherence exist, yet they lack successful implementation and sustainable use likely because of lack of end-user involvement and theoretical underpinnings in their development and insufficient attention to implementation methods to support their use in real-life settings. Medication adherence has three phases: initiation, implementation and persistence. We report the theory-driven development of an intervention module to support medication adherence (implementation and persistence phase) in alloSCT outpatients as a first step for future digitization and implementation in clinical setting within the SMILe project (Development, implementation and testing of an integrated care model in allogeneicSteMcell transplantatIon faciLitated byeHealth). Methods: We applied Michie’s Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) and the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation and Behavior (COM-B) model using three suggested stages followed by one stage added by our team regarding preparation for digitization of the intervention: (I) Defining the problem in behavioral terms; (II) Identifying intervention options; (III) Identifying content and implementation options; (IV) SMILe Care Model Prototype Development. Scientific evidence, data from a contextual analysis and patients’/caregivers’ and clinical experts’ inputs were compiled to work through these steps. Results: (I) Correct immunosuppressant taking and timing were defined as target behaviors. The intervention’s focus was determined within the COM-B dimensions Capability (lack of knowledge, lack of routine), Opportunity (lack of cues, interruptions in daily routine) and Motivation (lack of problem solving, trivialization). (II) Five intervention functions were chosen, i.e. education, training, modelling, persuasion and enablement. (III) Twenty-four behavior change techniques were selected, e.g., goal setting, action planning and problem solving. (IV) Finally, seventeen user stories were developed to guide the SMILeApp’s software development process. Conclusion: Our example on the theory-driven development of an intervention module in alloSCT delivered by eHealth and transplant team using a rigorous 3 + 1-stage approach based on BCW, COM-B and agile software development techniques, can be used as methodological guidance for other eHealth intervention developers. Our approach has the potential to enhance successful implementation and sustained use of eHealth solutions in real-life settings.

Purpose: To describe a process of creating eHealth components for an integrated care model using an agile software development approach, user‐centered design and, via the Behavior Change Wheel, behavior theory‐guided content development. Following the principles of implementation science and using the SMILe project (integrated care model for allogeneic stem cell transplantation facilitated by eHealth) as an example, this study demonstrates how to narrow the research‐to‐practice gap often encountered in eHealth projects.Methods: We followed a four‐step process: (a) formation of an interdisciplinary team; (b) a contextual analysis to drive the development process via behavioral theory; (c) transfer of content to software following agile software development principles; and (d) frequent stakeholder and end user involvement following user‐centered design principles.Findings: Our newly developed comprehensive development approach allowed us to create a running eHealth component and embed it in an integrated care model. An interdisciplinary team’s collaboration at specified interaction points supported clear, timely communication and interactions between the specialists. Because behavioral theory drove the content development process, we formulated user stories to define the software features, which were prioritized and iteratively developed using agile software development principles. A prototype intervention module has now been developed and received high ratings on the System Usability Scale after two rounds of usability testing.Conclusions: Following an agile software development process, structured collaboration between nursing scientists and software specialists allowed our interdisciplinary team to develop meaningful, theory‐based eHealth components adapted to context‐specific needs.Clinical Relevance: The creation of high‐quality, accurately fitting eHealth components specifically to be embedded in integrated care models should increase the chances of uptake, adoption, and sustainable implementation in clinical practice.

Purpose: Little is known about allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) patients’ medication adherence strategies. Acceptability and preferences regarding electronic monitoring (EM) systems to assess all three phases of medication adherence (ie, initiation, implementation, persistence) are crucial to allow their successful implementation in clinical or research settings but have not yet been evaluated. We therefore aimed to explore: 1) alloSCT patients’ medication adherence and self-management strategies; and 2) their acceptability and preferences of three different EM systems (MEMS Cap, Helping Hand, Button) as part of the Swiss SMILe study. Patients and Methods: Respecting anti-pandemic measures, we used a purposive sample of six adult alloSCT patients from the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland (USB)— 6 weeks to 2 years post-alloSCT—to conduct three focus group sessions with two patients each. Using a semi-structured outline, we explored 1) patients’ medication adherence strategies and medication self-management; and 2) their acceptance and preferences regarding EM use. The three tested EM systems were available for testing during each session. Discussions were audio-recorded, visualized using mind-mapping and analyzed using Mayring’s qualitative content analysis. Results: Patients (33% females; mean age 54.6± 16.3 years; 10.4± 8.4 months post-alloSCT) used medication adherence enhancing strategies (eg, preparing pillbox, linking intake to a habit). Still, they indicated that post-alloSCT medication management was challenging (eg, frequent schedule changes). All participants preferred the MEMS Button. Participants said its small size and the possibility to combine it with existing pillboxes (eg, putting it into/next to them) made them more confident about implementing it in their daily lives. Conclusion: Regarding EM systems for medication adherence, end-user preferences and acceptability influence adoption and fidelity. Of the three systems tested, our sample found the MEMS Button most acceptable and most preferable. Therefore, we will use it for our USB SMILe study.

Unrelieved pain is common in patients with advanced cancer. Although psychoeducational interventions were found to decrease pain, effects were moderate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a pain self-management intervention compared with usual care and to explore participants’ experiences with pain management and study participation. A multicenter randomized controlled trial design with post-trial interviews was used. Outpatients with cancer pain and their family caregivers were recruited from three Swiss university hospitals. The intervention group (IG) received the six-week intervention consisting of education, skills building, and nurse coaching. The control group (CG) received usual care. Outcome variables were analyzed using multilevel models. Interpretive description guided the qualitative study part. Twenty-one patients with advanced cancer and seven family caregivers completed the study. The group x time effect showed a statistically significant decrease in average pain (P ​= ​0.04), but no significant group x time effect for worst pain (P ​= ​0.06). Pain scores, pain-related knowledge, Pain Management Index, self-efficacy, and performance status improved in the IG (P ​< ​0.05). Almost all of the interviewed participants perceived the pain management diary, tailored intervention sessions, and weekly support as useful. None experienced study participation as burdensome. This study was the first to test the efficacy of a psychoeducational cancer pain self-management intervention in a German-speaking context, with most patients receiving palliative care. Clinicians can recommend the use of pain management diaries. Tailoring interventions to an individual's situation and dynamic pain trajectory may improve patients' pain self-management. This study has been registered via ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02713919.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02713919?term=NCT02713919&draw=2&rank=1.