Researchers Map ERIC Strategies to Implementation Stages

Researchers have developed a detailed crosswalk that aligns the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies with the Universal Stages of Implementation Completion (U-SIC) framework. This mapping effort aims to connect specific implementation strategies with stage-specific needs in the process of adopting new practices. The study, published in Frontiers in Health Services, provides a resource for practitioners seeking to organize their implementation planning efforts. By linking discrete strategies to sequential stages, the team offers a structured approach to navigating the complex, iterative nature of implementation work. The resulting crosswalk organizes candidate ERIC strategies by U-SIC stage and activity, providing a resource for linking strategy selection with implementation processes.

Implementation is described in the study as an iterative, multistage process that requires the selection and application of strategies over time. The U-SIC framework organizes these activities across sequential stages, identifying specific tasks within each phase. In contrast, the ERIC framework provides a taxonomy of discrete implementation strategies. While U-SIC focuses on the activities required to move through implementation stages, ERIC offers the specific methods or tactics that can support those activities. The researchers noted that mapping the alignment between these two frameworks could help bridge the gap between strategy selection and the specific needs of each implementation stage.

The study team used the U-SIC as the organizing structure for their analysis. They mapped the 73 ERIC strategies onto the U-SIC stages and activities to create a stage-anchored crosswalk. This process involved comparing the definitions of each ERIC strategy with the 46 U-SIC activities across eight distinct SIC stages. The researchers considered conceptual overlap in purpose, timing, and implementation function to determine if a strategy aligned with a specific activity. This methodological approach allowed for a systematic evaluation of how different strategies might fit into the broader implementation timeline.

To ensure the reliability of the mapping, two coders independently mapped and reviewed all the strategies. Following this initial independent review, the team conducted a cross-coder comparison to identify any discrepancies. The process also included expert review and consensus refinement to finalize the alignments. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results of this alignment process.

The results indicated that 33 of the 73 ERIC strategies, representing 45% of the total, aligned with at least one U-SIC activity. These aligned strategies collectively covered 44 of the 46 U-SIC activities, which is 96% of the total activities. However, the alignment was not uniform across all stages. Stage 3, known as Readiness Planning, contained the largest number of distinct aligned ERIC strategies, with 14 different strategies mapping to this specific stage.

Conversely, 40 ERIC strategies, or 55% of the total, did not align with any U-SIC activity. The researchers noted that these non-aligned strategies often represented broader system-level or policy-level approaches. The U-SIC framework is primarily focused on site-level implementation, which may explain why some broader strategies did not find a direct match.

The study concludes that the resulting crosswalk serves as a valuable resource for linking strategy selection with implementation processes. It organizes candidate ERIC strategies by U-SIC stage and activity, providing a clear structure for planning. However, the authors emphasize that the mappings indicate conceptual alignment rather than strategy effectiveness or optimal timing.

The researchers advise that the crosswalk should be applied with careful consideration of local context, available resources, and specific implementation needs.

Subject of Research: Mapping ERIC implementation strategies to U-SIC stages

Article Title: Exploring the alignment between the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change implementation strategies and Stages of Implementation Completion® stages

Article References: Burduli, E., Dir, A. L., Navarro, M. A., Powell, B. J., & Saldana, L. (2026). Exploring the alignment between the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change implementation strategies and Stages of Implementation Completion® stages. Frontiers in Health Services, 6, Article 1975860. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2026.1975860

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2026.1975860

Keywords: implementation science, ERIC, U-SIC, crosswalk, health services, strategy alignment, Readiness Planning, Exploring, alignment, between, Expert, Recommendations