Skip to main content

Table 2 Relationship between site context, qualitative themes, and implementation success

From: Implementing immediate postpartum contraception: a comparative case study at 11 hospitals

Characteristic

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6a

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Site 10

Site 11a

Organizational characteristics

 Annual delivery volume

5500

3000

2400

3500

3000

5500

3000

2500

4500

4000

8500

 Number of attendings on labor and delivery

36

30

15

33

45

NAb

77

20

51

50

50

Qualitative measures of implementation success

 Stakeholder satisfaction

High

High

High

High

Med

Med

Med

Med

Med

High

Low

 Routinization

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

Low

 Sustainability

High

High

Med

Med

Med

Med

Med

High

High

Low

NAb

Organizational context for implementationc

Essential conditions

  Implementation champion(s)

2+

2+

2+

2+

2+

2+

2+

1+

1+

2+

2-

  Financial environment

2+

2-

1+

2-

2-

1-

2-

2-

0

2-

2+

  Hospital administrators’ engagement

2+

2+

1+

2+

1+

1+

1X

2+

1+

1+

2-

Highly influential conditions

  Networks and communications

2+

2+

2+

1X

0

2X

1+

1+

0

1X

1X

  Compatibility with norms and values

2+

2+

2+

1+

2+

2+

1+

2+

1+

2+

1+

  Patient needs and resources

2+

2+

2+

1+

2+

2+

1+

2+

1+

2+

2X

  Learning climate

2+

1+

2+

2+

2+

2+

1+

1X

0

2+

2X

  Compatibility with workflow

1X

1-

1+

0

1-

1-

1+

1-

1-

0

2X

  Clinician/staff attitudes, beliefs, & knowledge

2+

2+

2+

2+

1+

1+

2X

2X

2X

1+

1-

Contextual summary scored

34

32

34

27

16

19

10

1

2

17

-18

Overview of implementation process

 Number of implementation strategies used

20

16

22

19

17

16

20

22

11

16

13

 Duration of implementation (months)

16

36

4

7

48

18

60

10

12

27

NAe

  1. aMember-checking was not completed for these sites
  2. bData unavailable
  3. cOrganizational context ratings reflect influence of the contextual factor on implementation at each site, 2+ denotes a strong positive influence, 1+ denotes a weak positive influence, 1- denotes a weak negative influence, 2- denotes a strong negative influence, 2X denotes a strong mixed influence, 1X denotes a weak mixed influence, 0 denotes no apparent influence
  4. dSummary score reflects the sum of ratings for all 39 CFIR constructs (Score = [positive] – [negative + mixed])
  5. eImplementation was ongoing at time of interview