A scoping review of applications of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to telehealth service implementation initiatives

BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), introduced in 2009, has the potential to provide a comprehensive understanding of the determinants of implementation-effectiveness of health service innovations. Although the CFIR has been increasingly used in recent years to examine factors influencing telehealth implementation, no comprehensive reviews currently exist on the scope of knowledge gained exclusively from applications of the CFIR to telehealth implementation initiatives. This review sought to address this gap. METHODS: PRISMA-ScR criteria were used to inform a scoping review of the literature. Five academic databases (PUBMED, PROQUEST, SCIDIRECT, CINAHL, and WoS) were searched for eligible sources of evidence from 01.01.2010 through 12.31.2021. The initial search yielded a total of 18,388 records, of which, 64 peer-reviewed articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. Included articles were reviewed in full to extract data, and data collected were synthesized to address the review questions. RESULTS: Most included articles were published during or after 2020 (64%), and a majority (77%) were qualitative or mixed-method studies seeking to understand barriers or facilitators to telehealth implementation using the CFIR. There were few comparative- or implementation-effectiveness studies containing outcome measures (5%). The database search however, revealed a growing number of protocols for implementation-effectiveness studies published since 2020. Most articles (91%) reported the CFIR Inner Setting domain (e.g., leadership engagement) to have a predominant influence over telehealth implementation success. By comparison, few articles (14%) reported the CFIR Outer Setting domain (e.g., telehealth policies) to have notable influence. While more (63%) telehealth initiatives were focused on specialty (vs primary) care, a vast majority (78%) were focused on clinical practice over medical education, healthcare administration, or population health. CONCLUSIONS: Organized provider groups have historically paid considerable attention to advocating for telehealth policy (Outer Setting) reform. However, results suggest that for effective telehealth implementation, provider groups need to refocus their efforts on educating individual providers on the complex inter-relationships between Inner Setting constructs and telehealth implementation-effectiveness. On a separate note, the growth in implementation-effectiveness study protocols since 2020, suggests that additional outcome measures may soon be available, to provide a more nuanced understanding of the determinants of effective telehealth implementation based on the CFIR domains and constructs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08871-w.