What does this research mean for the field?

A tailored, CFIR-ERIC-informed assessment and feedback process is highly acceptable to faith-based congregations and provides actionable guidance for health program implementation planning. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.METHODOLOGICAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

The study aims to improve the sharing of implementation capacity findings with congregations to enhance health program planning.

June 1, 2026Open Access

Addressing a gap in community-engaged research: reporting results of congregations’ implementation capacity assessment to research participants

Key Points

The study aims to improve the sharing of implementation capacity findings with congregations to enhance health program planning.
30 congregations completed an EPICC CFIR-informed survey assessing implementation capacity.
A multi-step report generation process was implemented, based on ERIC recommendations.
Satisfaction with tailored feedback reports was measured among 80 participants.
Congregations showed wide variation in size and implementation capabilities.
Most common challenges included cost, design quality, and readiness for implementation.
Over 95% of respondents rated the feedback reports as accurate and helpful.

Abstract

Background Community-engaged research depends on sharing findings effectively; however, few tools translate implementation capacity and readiness data into actionable feedback. This gap limits community organizations’ ability to use results to guide health program implementation, build trust in research, and sustain ongoing participation. This study developed and used a tailored survey response report process for congregations participating in the Engaging Partners in Caring Communities (EPICC) project to support implementation planning and technical assistance. Methods The EPICC CFIR-informed survey, grounded in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), was completed by teams from 30 congregations after they selected a health promotion evidence-based program. A multi-step process, informed by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), was developed to generate congregation-specific feedback reports. Satisfaction with the reports was assessed using responses from 80 participants. Results Congregations varied widely in size and implementation capacity. Cost, design quality, and readiness for implementation were identified as the most common challenges. Tailored strength-based survey response reports were generated for all congregations. Satisfaction was high, with over 95% of respondents rating the reports as accurate, helpful, and satisfactory or better in reflecting their congregation and guiding implementation planning. Conclusion A theory-based, strength-focused CFIR-ERIC assessment and feedback process was successfully adapted for faith-based congregations, extending implementation frameworks beyond healthcare settings. Tailored reports and interactive feedback were highly acceptable and provided actionable guidance for readiness and program implementation. This scalable approach may facilitate translation of implementation science to diverse community settings, although effects on implementation outcomes require further study.

Bookmark

View Full Paper