Table 2 Studies’ rationale for using CFIR + TDF

Bunger et al. [29]

“We highlight the theoretical justification for the different components of the [learning collaboratives]…the [CFIR]…and the [TDF]. These frameworks highlight many important constructs that may need to be addressed in implementation efforts.” (p. 85)

Elouafkaoui et al. [33]

“The [CFIR] and the [TDF] for health psychology were used as coding frameworks.” (p. 9)

English [28]

“[The CFIR and TDF] were used to explore how and why potential intervention activities might be valuable in influencing hospital practice change. This helped to identify [intervention activities] felt to address core problems and that might both fit the context and support the overall effectiveness of a package of activities.” (p. 6)

Gould et al. [22]

“[U]se of the TDF to identify potential barriers to change individuals’ behaviour, may not be the only approaches to improving transfusion practice or optimising A&F in the hospital context. Behaviour change within a healthcare setting is a complex process, and due to the multi-level nature of healthcare organisations, elements of change in response to feedback may be outside the control of any individual healthcare professional… The [CFIR] provides a framework for identifying what works where and why across different organisational levels within multiple settings.” (p. 3)

x

Graham-Rowe et al. [25]

“The [TDF]…[includes] theoretical domain[s] represent[ing] a range of related constructs that may mediate behaviour change at the level of the individual, team or healthcare organisation…. However, it is possible that barriers and enablers could operate at multiple levels in the healthcare system…The [CFIR]…offers a framework of theory-based constructs as a practical guide for systematically assessing potential barriers and facilitators to successful implementation across different organizational levels.” (p. 2)

X

Manca et al. [24]

“The TDF is a comprehensive framework that includes all of the important constructs of implementation. Since it is inclusive and addresses a large number of domains (14) and constructs (84), it may not be the best tool to identify and prioritize the key elements of the implementation. However, an awareness of the constructs in the TDF will help ensure that no important construct is missed during the qualitative evaluation…The CFIR framework is a pragmatic synthesis of several frameworks and models and will inform the implementation process by identifying key elements in the program implementation in a systematic way.” (p. 7)

X

Moullin et al. [30]

“Factors [influencing professional service implementation in community pharmacy] were assessed at each stage of implementation using the [CFIR]. CFIR was augmented with factors not included, or implied within broad constructs of the framework, in order to make them more explicit. Additional factors included behavioural influences from Theoretical Domains Framework.” (p. 4)

X

Murphy et al. [27]

“[T]he CFIR provided a foundation for a meta-view of understanding important variables to consider with the implementation of a complex intervention designed for changing behaviour vis-a-vis community pharmacists in mental health care… We then followed a step-wise approach…to intervention design and development using the body of work by Michie and colleagues [including the TDF] to organize and conceptualize strategies to change behaviours.” (p. 2)

X

Newlands et al. [31]

“Section 1 of the interview related to participants’ experiences and responses to the RAPiD trial audit and feedback intervention and were based on the…[CFIR]. Section 2 of the interview used a topic guide based on the TDF to explore the factors influencing GDPs’ management of patients with bacterial infections.” (p. 2)

Prior et al. [23]

“[U]sing the [CFIR] to explore the acceptability of the interventions and the [TDF] to identify barriers and enablers to evidence-based antibiotic prescribing behaviour by GDPs… [The TDF] allows for consideration of a comprehensive range of potential influences on health professional behavior… The CFIR consists of common constructs from published implementation theories and offers an over-arching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification to understand the mechanism about what works, where, and why across various contexts.” (p. 1; p. 7)

X

X

Sales et al. [26]

“Our primary rationale for using both frameworks is that one (TDF) specializes in individual-level behavior change, while the other (CFIR) focuses more on the organizational level, above the individual.” (p. 3)

X

Templeton et al. [32]

“The [TDF] was used to identify and describe patient-, organization-, and system-level barriers and facilitators to care…[Practice characteristics] were selected using the [CFIR] as a complement to the TDF to increase specificity of organizational assessment.” (p. 1)

X