The Implementation Café

Session 1

Session 1.1 Introduction to Implementation - Welcome to the Implementation Cafe

Opening the doors 

• Meet your hosts and fellow patrons 

• What’s on the menu today (session overview and structure) 

• House rules: curiosity, shared learning, and a focus on real‑world practice 

This is your orientation to the Café, a shared space for thinking, questioning, and learning about implementation. 

Session 1.2 Setting the Table

Where Implementation Science came from and what it is 

• Why implementation science emerged as a field 

• The long‑standing problem of good evidence staying “off the table” 

• How implementation science helps bridge the gap between evidence, policy, and practice 

• What implementation science is and what it is not 

This is the groundwork: understanding the context, history, and purpose of the field so we’re all prepared to engage in the work ahead. 

Session 1.3 The recipe for implementation

Theories, Models, and Frameworks 

• Core ingredients: theories, models, and frameworks 

• How different recipes suit different implementation contexts 

• When to follow a recipe closely and when adaptation is essential 

Here we step into the kitchen to explore how implementation is designed, guided, and adapted in real‑world settings. 

SPEAKERS: Dr Mary Kennedy, Prof Sara Bayes, Dr Lauren Fortington, Dr Annie de Leo 

RESOURCES  

• Moullin, J.C., Dickson, K.S., Stadnick, N.A. et al. Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice. Implement Sci Commun 1, 42 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00023-7. https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43058-020-00023-7#citeas 

• Lane-Fall, M.B., Curran, G.M. & Beidas, R.S. Scoping implementation science for the beginner: locating yourself on the “subway line” of translational research. BMC Med Res Methodol 19, 133 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0783-z. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0783-z 

• Bauer MS and Kirchner J (2020). “Implementation science: What is it and why should I care?” Psychiatry Research 283: 112376.Bauer MS, Kirchner J. Implementation science: What is it and why should I care? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016517811930602X 

• Birken, S.A., Rohweder, C.L., Powell, B.J. et al. T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implementation Sci 13, 143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4. https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4 

• De Leo, A., Bayes, S., Bloxsome, D. et al. Exploring the usability of the COM-B model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to define the helpers of and hindrances to evidence-based practice in midwifery. Implement Sci Commun. 2021: 2 (7) doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00100-x https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43058-020-00100-x#citeas 

• Kennedy, MA, Bayes, S, Galvão, DA, et al. If you build it, will they come? Evaluation of a co-located exercise clinic and cancer treatment centre using the RE-AIM framework. Eur J Cancer Care. 2020; 29:e13251. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13251
  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ecc.13251 

• Fortington LV, Bekker S, Finch CF. Integrating and maintaining automated external defibrillators and emergency planning in community sport settings: a qualitative case study. Emergency Medicine Journal 2020;37:617-622. doi:10.1136/emermed-2019-208781 https://emj.bmj.com/content/37/10/617.info 

• Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812. PMID: 22310560; PMCID: PMC3731143. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3731143/ 

• Implementation Science: https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/ 

• Implementation Science Communications: https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com/ 

• RE-AIM & PRISM: implementation in context https://re-aim.org/ 

Session 2

Session 2.1 Stock the pantry

What we're working with

• Revisiting The Thing and the key distinctions between effectiveness and implementation research 

• Implementation strategies are what we do to help people and places do The Thing 

Session 2.2 Review the recipe

Are you ready to implement?

• A practical decision tool for knowing where your research sits 

• Four case studies: from a sepsis protocol still needing efficacy testing, to colon cancer screening ready for full implementation 

Session 2.3 Same recipe, different kitchen

Context shapes everything

• Why the same Thing lands differently in different places 

• How mixed data sources build a picture of context — and why that picture shapes what comes next 

• The CARI checklist as a practical tool for gauging whether a setting is ready 

• Who completes it, when, and what it tells you about next steps 

Speakers 

Dr Mary Kennedy, Prof Sara Bayes, Dr Lauren Fortington 

Resources 

• Fortington LV, Badenhorst M, Bolling C, et al. Are we levelling the playing field? A qualitative case study of the awareness, uptake and relevance of the IOC consensus statements in two countries. British Journal of Sports Medicine Published Online First: 01 February 2023. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105984 

• Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. 

• Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Aarons G, Chambers D, Glisson C, Mittman B. Implementation research in mental health services: an emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2009;36(1):24–34. 

• https://melaniebarwick.com/implementation-tools/#:~:text=CARI%2DCHECKLIST_FOR_ASSESSING_READINESS_FOR_IMPLEMENTATION%2DBARWICK 
• Lane-Fall, M.B., Curran, G.M. & Beidas, R.S. Scoping implementation science for the beginner: locating yourself on the “subway line” of translational research. BMC Med Res Methodol 19, 133 (2019).  

Session 3

Session 3.1 What organisational readiness is, and how you measure it.

Descriptor: "A quick orientation to what readiness means, then the drawer of measurement tools and which ones are worth picking up." 

• Readiness as a shared team property: a shared psychological state in which organisational members feel committed to implementing a change and confident in their collective ability to do it (Weiner's theory of organisational readiness for change) 

• Why readiness is a property of the group, not a tally of individual enthusiasm — and why its borders with needs, barriers and facilitators remain blurry in the literature 

• What a systematic review of readiness assessments found (Miake-Lye et al., 2020): significant variation between tools, alongside important commonalities 

• Mapping the assessments onto CFIR — the inner setting domain (readiness for implementation, networks and communications, implementation climate, structural characteristics, culture) and the individual domain (personal attributes, self-efficacy) 

• Leadership as the bonus ingredient: frequently measured, but usually framed around the intervention rather than the organisation 

• Why there is no gold standard, and why most assessments need customising or tailoring before you use them 

Session 3.2 Readiness in the real world – getting it off the ground.

Descriptor: "The theory meets the corridor: what it took to get this started, told by someone who was there." 

Guest: Professor Nigel Spry, radiation oncologist and academic (prostate cancer), on the co-located exercise clinic and cancer treatment centre. 

• Background and keys to success — self-efficacy; networks and communications. Openness to new ideas, fully engaged presence, and teams "always searching for fresh, new ways of looking at problems" 

• Strategies for success: adaptation — structural characteristics; culture; networks and communications. Respectful interaction, productive conflict, and trust as the willingness to be vulnerable to a colleague 

• Strategies for success: sustainability and giving — personal attributes; structural characteristics; climate. Compatibility of the intervention with the organisation, leadership, the team, and the individual's own beliefs 

Session 3.3 Readiness in the real world – keeping it going.

Descriptor: "Starting something is one problem. Keeping it running is another — and it turns out to be mostly about relationships." 

• More strategies for success: turning up — readiness for implementation; structural characteristics; networks and communications. Buy-in from staff beyond leadership, and whether the pre-conditions for implementation have actually been met 

• The take home — make relationships. Implementation climate: the absorptive capacity for change, the shared receptivity of those involved, and the extent to which using the intervention is rewarded, supported and expected 

SPEAKERS: Dr Mary Kennedy, Prof Sara Bayes, Dr Lauren Fortington, Prof Nigel Spry (guest) 

SLIDES: https://wahtn.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Imp-Cafe-JC3-September-2023.pdf 

RESOURCES:

• Miake-Lye, I.M., Delevan, D.M., Ganz, D.A., Mittman, B.S. & Finley, E.P. Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments. BMC Health Services Research 20, 106 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4926-z 

• Weiner, B.J. A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science 4, 67 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67 

• Damschroder, L.J., Reardon, C.M., Widerquist, M.A.O. & Lowery, J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science 17, 75 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0 

• Shea, C.M., Jacobs, S.R., Esserman, D.A., Bruce, K. & Weiner, B.J. Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implementation Science 9, 7 (2014). 

• Scaccia, J.P., Cook, B.S., Lamont, A., et al. A practical implementation science heuristic for organizational readiness: R = MC². Journal of Community Psychology. 2015;43(4):484–501. 

• Kennedy, M.A., Bayes, S., Galvão, D.A., et al. If you build it, will they come? Evaluation of a co-located exercise clinic and cancer treatment centre using the RE-AIM framework. Eur J Cancer Care. 2020;29:e13251. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13251 

• Lane-Fall, M.B., Curran, G.M. & Beidas, R.S. Scoping implementation science for the beginner: locating yourself on the "subway line" of translational research. BMC Med Res Methodol 19, 133 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0783-z 

• CFIR constructs guide: https://cfirguide.org/constructs/ 

• CARI — Checklist for Assessing Readiness for Implementation (Barwick): https://melaniebarwick.com/implementation-tools/ 

• RE-AIM & PRISM: implementation in context: https://re-aim.org/ 

The best cafés are shaped by the people who eat there, not by the people in the kitchen. 

Session 4.1 Who's at the table

Descriptor: "Getting the language right first, because 'we consulted consumers' and 'we worked in partnership' are not the same claim." 

Consumer and community involvement — the key terms 

• Consumers and community members: people with lived experience of a health condition or service, their support people, carers, advocates, and people from patient advocacy groups 

• Involvement (engagement): a bi-directional relationship between consumer stakeholders and members of a research team 

• CCI as the conduct of ethical research that happens with the community, rather than to or for it — co-design, collaboration, co-production 

• The levels of engagement: informing, consulting, involving, partnership, consumer-led — and what moving along that scale asks of a research team 

Session 4.2 Pull up a chair

Descriptor: "One project followed all the way through, showing what involvement looks like when it is designed in rather than bolted on." 

CCI in practice — the IN-DEEP case study 

• Who was recruited and why: four people affected by multiple sclerosis were approached and all accepted, selected for a spread of genders and MS types, familiarity with research, and connection to the broader MS community. The group ultimately worked as three members after one withdrew 

• What the advisory group did, mapped across planning, conduct, and dissemination and translation: shaping focus group questions, suggesting recruitment networks, prioritising which reviews to include, reviewing and revising website materials, co-authoring the journal article, and speaking at the website launch 

• How they were engaged: face-to-face facilitated discussion, email, documents circulated a week in advance, individual invitations to comment, and ad hoc input between meetings 

• What made it work: members feeling valued, empowered and satisfied; combining personal experience with professional expertise; carrying the perspectives of people who lacked the confidence or opportunity to take part themselves; and the small things that made involvement feel valued rather than token 

• The critical enabler: the brokering or boundary-spanning role — a knowledge broker who can "facilitate transactions and the flow of information between people or groups separated by some gap or barrier" 

• Keeping researchers honest: regular discussion tested whether the team's idealism reflected a "researcher aim" or the real-world dilemmas of people making treatment decisions 

Session 4.3 Setting a table people can actually sit at

Descriptor: "The gap between intending to involve people and building something they can genuinely take part in." 

Challenges, practicalities, and what's driving CCI 

• When the condition shapes the participation: MS is chronic, disabling and unpredictable — one member was unable to continue past the first meeting 

• The practical accommodations that decide who can take part: venues with adequate air conditioning for heat sensitivity, easy parking, physical access — and the attention required to anticipate them 

• Lessons from maternity care and midwifery research: working with populations who give or use health care makes a trauma-informed approach worth adopting 

• Budget more time than you think, because people arrive with differing priorities, sense of urgency, energy levels, attention capacity, and clarity or lens 

• What's driving CCI up the agenda: funding bodies and grant writing, and Human Research Ethics Committee requirements 

Session 4.4 Something to take away

Descriptor: "The practical close: what CCI actually asks of a researcher, and who can help you do it well." 

CCI from a researcher's perspective — what to remember and where to get help 

• Applications from a researcher's perspective: what CCI asks of you in practice, once the principles are agreed 

• What CCI is not about: researchers simply raising awareness of their research; treating consumers as participants taking part in research; an opportunity to tick the box on a grant application; or a route to securing funding and publications 

• The difference: collaboration, involvement, engagement 

• Support and advice available for WA researchers through WAHTN — the Consumer and Community Health Research Network 

• Where to go next: the Involving People in Research site and the ECU intranet guidance on consumer and community involvement 

SPEAKERS: Dr Annie De Leo, Dr Mary Kennedy, Prof Sara Bayes, Dr Lauren Fortington, Dr Kate Buchanan 

SLIDES: https://wahtn.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Imp-Cafe-JC4-13-10-23.pdf

RESOURCES:

• Synnot, A.L., Cherry, C.L., Summers, M.P., Stuckey, R., Milne, C.A., Lowe, D.B. & Hill, S.J. Consumer engagement critical to success in an Australian research project: reflections from those involved. Australian Journal of Primary Health. 2018;24(3):197–203. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY17107 

• Long, J.C., Cunningham, F.C. & Braithwaite, J. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research 13, 158 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-158 

• VCCC Alliance — levels of consumer engagement model: https://vcccalliance.org.au/our-work/consumer-engagement/model/ 

• Involving People in Research — WAHTN Consumer and Community Health Research Network: https://www.involvingpeopleinresearch.org.au 

• INVOLVE UK (2008) — source of the engagement diagrams used in this session 

• ECU internal link (staff only): https://intranet.ecu.edu.au/research/for-research-staff/research-journey/getting-started/wahtn-consumer-and-community-involvement