Rapid-cycle systems modeling to support evidence-informed decision-making during system-wide implementation

• Main Authors: R. Christopher Sheldrick, Gracelyn Cruden, Ana J. Schaefer, Thomas I. Mackie
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2021-10-01
• Series: Implementation Science Communications
• Subjects: Computer simulation; Epistemology; Implementation science; Evidence-based practice; Psychological trauma; Screening
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00218-6

Abstract Background To “model and simulate change” is an accepted strategy to support implementation at scale. Much like a power analysis can inform decisions about study design, simulation models offer an analytic strategy to synthesize evidence that informs decisions regarding implementation of evidence-based interventions. However, simulation modeling is under-utilized in implementation science. To realize the potential of simulation modeling as an implementation strategy, additional methods are required to assist stakeholders to use models to examine underlying assumptions, consider alternative strategies, and anticipate downstream consequences of implementation. To this end, we propose Rapid-cycle Systems Modeling (RCSM)—a form of group modeling designed to promote engagement with evidence to support implementation. To demonstrate its utility, we provide an illustrative case study with mid-level administrators developing system-wide interventions that aim to identify and treat trauma among children entering foster care. Methods RCSM is an iterative method that includes three steps per cycle: (1) identify and prioritize stakeholder questions, (2) develop or refine a simulation model, and (3) engage in dialogue regarding model relevance, insights, and utility for implementation. For the case study, 31 key informants were engaged in step 1, a prior simulation model was adapted for step 2, and six member-checking group interviews (n = 16) were conducted for step 3. Results Step 1 engaged qualitative methods to identify and prioritize stakeholder questions, specifically identifying a set of inter-related decisions to promote implementing trauma-informed screening. In step 2, the research team created a presentation to communicate key findings from the simulation model that addressed decisions about programmatic reach, optimal screening thresholds to balance demand for treatment with supply, capacity to start-up and sustain screening, and availability of downstream capacity to provide treatment for those with indicated need. In step 3, member-checking group interviews with stakeholders documented the relevance of the model results to implementation decisions, insight regarding opportunities to improve system performance, and potential to inform conversations regarding anticipated implications of implementation choices. Conclusions By embedding simulation modeling in a process of stakeholder engagement, RCSM offers guidance to realize the potential of modeling not only as an analytic strategy, but also as an implementation strategy.