Using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-Based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) to Document Modifications to a Multilevel Deimplementation Strategy Aimed at Reducing Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Pain.

Background: Strategies to implement evidence-based practices often require modifications. A systematic approach to documenting these changes was not widely adopted until the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-Based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) emerged in 2021, enabling researchers to characterize both proactive and reactive implementation changes. While publications demonstrating the FRAME-IS's application are emerging, few have reflected on the use of the tool itself. The National Institutes of Health-funded Deidentified Opioid Initiative R01 trial, testing strategies to implement the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on opioid prescribing, offered a timely chance to assess the FRAME-IS's utility in a multisite, hybrid type-3 trial. Method: An interdisciplinary team of researchers, clinicians, and implementers documented modifications using the FRAME-IS across four implementation strategies that comprise an implementation package called systems consultation: (1) audit and feedback, (2) educational meetings, (3) practice facilitation, and (4) prescriber peer consulting. Modifications were needed due to COVID-19, the rise in telemedicine, changes in opioid prescribing, and healthcare system variations. Results: The Deidentified Opioid Initiative was implemented in 32 clinics within two Midwestern healthcare systems using a sequential, multiple-assignment randomized trial. The implementation team completed the FRAME-IS's seven modules for each strategy's modifications and reflected on the process of using the tool, strengths, and limitations. Conclusions: The team found the FRAME-IS is practical, comprehensive, and user-friendly. It effectively documents modifications and fosters reflection, raising critical questions about implementation. Challenges included role blurring (i.e., researcher/implementer/coordinator), capturing the complexity of cascading modifications (i.e., how one modification leads to another), and a lack of reporting options to capture modifications in a clustered, multisite trial (i.e., clinical staff nested in clinics nested in healthcare systems). Considerations and recommendations from this case study can enhance the FRAME-IS, guide other scholars in its use, and improve the research community's ability to measure the dynamic evolution of implementation strategies systematically. Future research should explore how documented modifications impact implementation outcomes.