Cited by 105Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Do the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies adequately address sustainment?

Open access
Nathan, Nicole, Powell, Byron J., Shelton, Rachel C., Laur, Celia V., Wolfenden, Luke, Hailemariam, Maji, Yoong, Sze Lin, Sutherland, Rachel +3 more·2022·Frontiers in Health Services

Abstract

Background: Sustainability science is an emerging area within implementation science. There is limited evidence regarding strategies to best support the continued delivery and sustained impact of evidence-based interventions (EBIs). To build such evidence, clear definitions, and ways to operationalize strategies specific and/or relevant to sustainment are required. Taxonomies and compilations such as the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) were developed to describe and organize implementation strategies. This study aimed to adapt, refine, and extend the ERIC compilation to incorporate an explicit focus on sustainment. We also sought to classify the specific phase(s) of implementation when the ERIC strategies could be considered and applied. Methods: We used a two-phase iterative approach to adapt the ERIC. This involved: (1) adapting through consensus (ERIC strategies were mapped against barriers to sustainment as identified via the literature to identify if existing implementation strategies were sufficient to address sustainment, needed wording changes, or if new strategies were required) and; (2) preliminary application of this sustainment-explicit ERIC glossary (strategies described in published sustainment interventions were coded against the glossary to identify if any further amendments were needed). All team members independently reviewed changes and provided feedback for subsequent iterations until consensus was reached. Following this, and utilizing the same consensus process, the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework was applied to identify when each strategy may be best employed across phases. Results: Surface level changes were made to the definitions of 41 of the 73 ERIC strategies to explicitly address sustainment. Four additional strategies received deeper changes in their definitions. One new strategy was identified: Communicate with stakeholders the continued impact of the evidence-based practice. Application of the EPIS identified that at least three-quarters of strategies should be considered during preparation and implementation phases as they are likely to impact sustainment. Conclusion: A sustainment-explicit ERIC glossary is provided to help researchers and practitioners develop, test, or apply strategies to improve the sustainment of EBIs in real-world settings. Whilst most ERIC strategies only needed minor changes, their impact on sustainment needs to be tested empirically which may require significant refinement or additions in the future.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/frhs.2022.905909

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nathan, N., Powell, B. J., Shelton, R. C., Laur, C. V., Wolfenden, L., Hailemariam, M., Yoong, S. L., Sutherland, R., Kingsland, M., Waltz, T. J., & Hall, A.
Affiliations
  • Hunter Medical Research Institute (AU)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
  • Eastern Michigan University (US)
Corresponding author
Nathan, Nicole
Venue
Frontiers in Health Services
Published
2022-11-03
Volume
2
Pages
905909-905909
ISSN
2813-0146 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4308111117
Cited by
105
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 17
FWCI
24.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Health Services (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
implementation sustainment, Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change, implementation strategies, evidence-based interventions, sustainability science, EPIS framework, implementation stages, stakeholder communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review