Implementation, interrupted: Identifying and leveraging factors that sustain after a program interruption ========================================================================================================= * Rachel Hennein * Joseph Ggita * Bashir Ssuna * Donna Shelley * Ann R. Akiteng * J. Lucian Davis * Achilles Katamba * Mari Armstrong-Hough ## Abstract **Background** Many implementation efforts experience interruptions, especially in settings with developing health systems. Approaches for evaluating interruptions are needed to inform targeted re-implementation strategies. **Methods** This study took place in two public health centers with tuberculosis (TB) units in Uganda that previously implemented diabetes mellitus (DM) screening in 2017. In 2019, we conducted interviews with clinic staff to determine current DM practices. We mapped themes identified in the interviews to a Social Ecological Model with three levels: outer setting, inner setting, and individuals. **Results** We conducted nine interviews with clinic staff. Respondents explained that DM screening ceased due to disruptions in the supply chain for glucose test strips. This outer setting interruption had cascading effects on the inner setting and individuals. The lack of screening supplies limited the staff’s opportunities to perform DM screening within the inner setting level, which was associated with diminished self-efficacy within the individual level. However, culture, compatibility and individual beliefs about DM screening sustained throughout the interruption. **Conclusions** We identified factors that diminished and sustained within and between ecological levels during a program interruption. Using this approach, other programs facing interruptions can identify factors and cascading effects of the interruption to target them for re-implementation. Keywords * Non-communicable diseases * implementation * tuberculosis * diabetes mellitus ## Introduction Implementation science and theories of improvement have been used to inform and assess interventions across many contexts (1). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is among the most influential of these frameworks, and has been applied to understand implementation of programs ranging from evidence-based tuberculosis (TB) practices in Indonesia to child and maternal health outcomes in Kenyan hospitals (2-4). The CFIR was created by the Veteran Affairs (VA) Healthcare System to identify constructs that impact the successful implementation of an intervention within a series of key domains, including the outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals involved, intervention characteristics, and process (5). While the CFIR has been used to optimize the initial adoption and progress of interventions during the study period, it has not been used to scrutinize the long-term sustainability of implementation efforts when outer setting resources or characteristics vary over time (6). Variation in outer setting resources or characteristics is common in many low- and middle-income countries. For example, variation in availability of essential medicines and screening and management resources have impeded sustainable care for HIV, TB, reproductive health, and non-communicable diseases (7-12). Despite these well-reported outer setting barriers, no studies have applied the CFIR to analyze how variation in such settings may relate to program interruptions, or applied the CFIR to identify barriers and facilitators to re-implementation following significant interruptions. Thus, there is critical need for an implementation science of interruption: guidance for how to prevent or mitigate interruptions, categorize their sources and targets, and design re-implementation strategies that build on the elements that tend to persist in the face of interruption. To respond to this knowledge gap, we carried out a qualitative case study to examine how the elements of an evidence-based intervention to screen TB patients for diabetes mellitus (DM) in Kampala, Uganda sustained, evolved, or suspended after the initial implementation period in the context of variation in key resources such as essential medicines and diagnostic materials. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends routine screening and treatment of DM among patients presenting with TB (13) in response to a growing body of evidence that suggests a bidirectional relationship between DM and TB (14). DM has been observed to increase the progression from latent to active TB three-fold and increase adverse treatment outcomes for active TB fivefold (15, 16). However, patients presenting at TB units with hyperglycemia in low-resource settings are rarely diagnosed or counseled on controlling their blood sugar levels: half of Ugandans living with DM and 90% living with pre-DM are left undiagnosed (17). ## Materials & Methods We conducted qualitative interviews with clinic staff using the CFIR to identify factors that persisted and factors that diminished in the midst of a program interruption. By reorganizing these CFIR-derived factors into an ecological model explicitly, we propose an approach to guide assessments of intervention interruptions and inform re-implementation strategies. ### Conceptual framework The implementation science agenda has prioritized the identification of explanatory mechanisms that describe how the context in which an intervention is being implemented impacts sustainability (18). One way to categorize these mechanisms is through the use of Ecological Theory, which contextualizes an individual’s functioning within the context of their immediate social networks, setting, and community (19). This theory has been applied to health programs, whereby the program functions within the context of its practitioners, practice setting, public policy, and population (6). Factors at each ecological level can change over time and impact the compatibility and sustainability of the program (5, 6). Similarly, the CFIR is a multilevel framework that posits interaction among multiple domains (outer setting, inner setting, process, individual characteristics, and intervention characteristics) (20), though these levels are not explicitly nested. Thus, we sought to nest CFIR constructs within an ecological model to conceptualize how implementation factors interact between and within ecological levels during a program interruption. By situating the CFIR more explicitly within an ecological model, we aimed to understand the cascading effects and mechanisms of program interruptions at each ecological level to target them for re-implementation. ### Study setting This case study took place in two public health centers with high-volume TB units in Kampala, Uganda. In 2017, the estimated incidence of TB in Uganda was 201 per 100,000 people, and the TB mortality rate was 26 per 100,000 (21). Public clinics in Uganda provide free healthcare to patients diagnosed with TB as long as supplies are available, whereas private clinics charge patients (22). Yet the TB treatment success rate in Uganda was 77% in 2016 (21), below the WHO target minimum success rate of 90% (23, 24). ### Initial implementation Both health facilities had previously participated in a public health program of integrated TB-DM screening and evaluation, which ended in December 2017. This pilot program equipped staff in TB units with implementation strategies, namely training, screening algorithms to support clinical decision-making, glucometers, test strips, and TB treatment registers with entries for random blood glucose and fasting blood glucose readings. However, the inconsistent supply chain in the outer setting led to inconsistent access to key materials in the clinics after the initial implementation, such as glucose test strips and functional glucometers. Consequently, delivery of DM screening in TB clinics declined. ### Re-implementation study In June 2019, independent of the initial pilot program, we sought to assess the implementation climate for newly introducing DM care into these two TB clinics. Neither clinic had regularly offered DM evaluation since shortly after the previous pilot ended, 18 months prior. However, during the course of ethnographic observation of the clinics, we found that many remnants of the previous DM screening program persisted, including laminated DM screening algorithms, equipment, and patient education materials. Thus, we conducted key informant interviews with health workers to determine the *re-implementation* climate for integrating DM screening into the TB clinic. We sought to identify aspects of the original DM screening implementation that persisted and diminished during the interruption to create a targeted re-implementation strategy. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (25) guided study reporting. ### Sampling and study participants We purposively sampled health workers and administrators from the two public health centers in August 2019. First, a male Ugandan researcher on the team (JG) introduced a female non-Ugandan researcher (RH) to the health workers at clinic sites. RH spent six weeks conducting ethnographic observation and meeting the health workers at the clinic sites to establish a relationship and share reasons for the research. Then, participants were recruited in person based on their involvement with delivery of care in the TB unit. Participants were invited to participate in key informant interviews about barriers and facilitators to the integration of DM screening into routine TB evaluation and treatment initiation. ### Data collection We created a semi-structured interview guide using the CFIR to assess factors related to the sustainability of TB-DM care integration (5). First, we included questions from the “outer setting,” “inner setting,” and “characteristics of individuals” CFIR domains to identify factors that impact program sustainability at each of these ecological levels. As our study was designed to identify ecological factors that facilitate and mitigate sustainability and we did not anticipate a strong institutional memory of the previous intervention, we excluded the “process” and “intervention characteristics” domains initially. However, as participants discussed their experiences with the previous TB-DM program and provided recommendations for improvement, we employed probing questions related to these domains. For example, after participants suggested that the unstable supply chain hindered their ability to continue DM screening, which is related to the “outer setting” domain, we asked probing questions about protocols for dealing with stockouts, which is related to the “planning” construct within the “process” domain. After creating the questions, we iteratively trialed the interview guide with a Ugandan researcher who is an expert in conducting qualitative interviews in this setting (JG). Through local pre-testing, we adapted the interview questions to ensure conceptual equivalence in Uganda. All interviews were conducted at the clinic sites in English by a doctoral student with six years of qualitative interview experience in East Africa (RH). Interviews lasted from 20 to 66 minutes and field notes were made after each interview. Interviews were recorded on an encrypted smart phone. Interviews were de-identified, professionally transcribed, reviewed and revised for accuracy, and uploaded into ATLAS.ti 8. All recordings were deleted. ### Analysis Transcripts were double coded by a non-Ugandan researcher (RH) and the code structure was reviewed and validated by other members of the study team (MAH, JG) in two cycles using a hybrid, abductive approach (26). First, using the accepted CFIR inclusion and exclusion criteria for each construct (27), we applied codes to passages that reflected relevant CFIR constructs and subconstructs using a pre-existing code tree. To emphasize that an implementation has already taken place, we modified the CFIR constructs “readiness for implementation” to “readiness for re-implementation” and “implementation climate” to “re-implementation climate.” After this first round of directed coding, we carried out an inductive content analysis, adding novel codes to the pre-populated code tree to represent themes that emerged from the transcripts but were not strictly contained by CFIR constructs. We organized all themes by CFIR domain. We applied codes independently and allowed for co-occurrence of multiple codes. After coding, we used this combined directed and thematic content analysis to nest CFIR constructs within the ecological model. To do this, we mapped the established CFIR domains, constructs, and subconstructs to an ecological model (Figure 1). The “outer setting”, “inner setting”, and “individuals” CFIR domains each represent their own ecological level surrounding the program sustainability. Inherent to the program’s sustainability are the program’s characteristics and process of implementation, which are related to the “intervention characteristics” and “process” CFIR domains, respectively. These domains include constructs that are situated across various ecological levels. For example, the “engaging” construct within the “process” domain is defined as involving the relevant personnel in the implementation, which can be mapped to the health workers in the “individuals” ecological level or National Medical Stores personnel in the “outer setting” ecological level. Thus, we included the “process” and “intervention characteristics” domains within the ecological level pertinent to the specific factor. We then adapted this model to create a hybrid CFIR-Ecological Model to assess contributors to the sustainability of the TB-DM program. Lastly, we identified relationships between factors at different ecological levels to better understand the mechanisms and cascading effects that impact program sustainability to target them for re-implementation (28). Data saturation was defined as the point at which no new themes emerged from the data (29). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.23.21263590/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.23.21263590/F1) Figure 1. Hybrid CFIR-Ecological Model to systematically evaluate an intervention interruption. The outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals CFIR domains are each mapped to their appropriate ecological levels. CFIR constructs for each of these domains are included within the corresponding ecological level. The intervention characteristics and process CFIR domains and associated constructs span multiple ecological levels and are sorted to the appropriate ecological level based on the specific factor. ### Human subjects and ethics approval Each participant provided verbal consent. The study was approved by the ethics review board of the Makerere University School of Public Health and Yale University Human Investigation Committee. ## Results ### Sample Nine of nine staff members across the two public-sector TB clinics agreed to participate in the interviews (Table 1). All key informants worked at a participating clinic during the original TB-DM implementation in 2016 and continued to work in a public facility in August 2019. Their median years of experience in their current role was 3 years (range: 2 weeks, 8 years) and median years of experience in the health field overall was 8 years (range: 3 years, 20 years). Most (7, 78%) were female. As all staff members across the two public-sector TB clinics participated and no new themes emerged from the data after seven interviews, sample saturation and data saturation were met, respectively. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.23.21263590/T1) Table 1. Participant characteristics Staff members explained that the delivery of DM screening in the TB clinic was interrupted by changes in the outer setting, particularly the supply chain for glucose test strips. They expressed confidence that without disruption of necessary materials for evaluation of DM, screening would have persisted even without other ongoing support. Yet, once these materials were not consistently available, even parts of the DM screening program that did not directly rely on blood glucose testing ceased. Unpredictable supplies of materials from the National Medical Stores eventually disrupted all activities related to screening for DM in the TB units, so that even during periods when test strips were available they were no longer routinely used. Content analysis identified one factor that was diminished and two factors that were sustained from the outer setting domain (Table 2). From the inner setting domain, two factors were diminished while three factors were sustained (Table 3). From the characteristics of individuals domain, one factor was diminished and one factor was sustained (Table 4). The CFIR domain, constructs, descriptions, and representative quotes for each factor are presented in Tables 2-4. We mapped each of these factor-domain pairs to their respective ecological level in the CFIR-Ecological Model depicted in Figure 1. Our adapted model describing the erosion or persistence of key factors influencing implementation of DM screening in the face of program interruption is represented in Figure 2. View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.23.21263590/T2) Table 2. Outer setting factors that were sustained or diminished during study interruption. View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.23.21263590/T3) Table 3. Inner setting factors that were sustained or diminished during study interruption. View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.23.21263590/T4) Table 4. Characteristics of individuals that were sustained or diminished during study interruption. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.23.21263590/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/29/2021.09.23.21263590/F2) Figure 2. Application of the CFIR-Ecological Model to the TB-DM case study. Dashed arrows highlight the ecological dynamics contributing to the sustainability of TB-DM care during the intervention interruption. Solid arrows highlight the ecological dynamics contributing to the unsustainability of TB-DM care during the intervention interruption. During the program interruption, key informants reported that community need and favorable patient preferences for DM screening continued (Table 2). In the inner setting, many factors facilitating DM screening persisted, including the compatibility of DM screening with the culture and workflow of the clinic, prioritization of DM screening by staff and leaders, and internal resources, such as physical space, workforce, and available time to carry out DM screening (Table 3). However, over time, the lack of DM testing kits and equipment from the outer setting diminished available screening resources and team learning in the clinic. At the level of the individual, health workers demonstrated sustained knowledge, beliefs, and motivation to screen for DM in the TB clinic long after the interruption began (Table 4). However, health workers reported that the interruption hindered their ability to reinforce and improve their DM clinical skills, leading to diminished self-efficacy. ### Cascading effects of program interruptions There were several mechanisms by which factors from the outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of the individuals interacted during the service interruption. First, we identified a cascading effect by which the inconsistent supply chain in the outer setting inhibited the availability of resources to screen for DM in the inner setting (Figure 2, solid arrows). Without access to screening supplies, team members could not conduct ongoing training and reinforce their skills through clinical practice. The lack of team learning in the inner setting, in turn, trickled down to impact the characteristics of the individuals. Without this sustained team learning, health workers reported diminished self-efficacy to perform DM screening. Notably, several factors sustained during the 18-month program interruption, primarily through institutional memory of the TB-DM program’s goals and outcomes (Figure 2, dashed arrows). For example, key informants reported sustained patient need and preferences for DM screening in the outer setting. Patient needs and preferences interacted with the inner setting’s culture of altruism and reinforced their high prioritization of DM screening among staff and clinic leadership. At the individual provider level, memory and positive associations of the program led to sustained knowledge, beliefs, and motivation to screen for DM in the TB clinic. The sustained knowledge, beliefs, and motivation related to DM screening contributed to continuing high prioritization of DM screening within the inner setting at-large, even at clinics where no patients had been screened for DM for over a year. The institutional memory of the DM screening program also sustained providers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the program’s compatibility with the clinic workflow, physical space, workforce, and available time for DM screening. Providers and administrators retained positive perceptions of the intervention characteristics long after daily delivery of DM screening had ceased. The persistence of factors associated with sustainability within the outer setting, inner setting, and individual domains suggests a favorable re-implementation climate. ## Discussion Many implementation efforts experience cycles of interruption, especially in settings with developing health systems (30, 31). Implementation programs must adapt to the dynamic context in which they function to maximize sustainable delivery (6, 32-34). However, little guidance is available for understanding or responding to interruptions when they do occur. This study adds to the literature by organizing key domains and constructs of the CFIR within an ecological model to theorize the cascading effects of outer setting instability on program sustainability. Using an empirical case study of an interruption to delivery of DM screening in Uganda, we identified implementation factors from the CFIR that persisted long after the screening program ceased, as well as implementation factors that faltered in response to changes in the outer setting. Most importantly, we described and theorized a cascading effect whereby changes in the outer setting domain first imperil constructs in the inner setting that once facilitated implementation, and through these inner setting changes eventually begin to erode individual characteristics that once facilitated implementation. By integrating the CFIR with ecological theory, we propose a framework for understanding and responding to program interruptions. This approach can be used to enhance the use of the CFIR to identify barriers and facilitators to re-implementation and target implementation factors linked to sustainability in the face of outer setting disruption. This approach to understanding the causes, consequences, and remedies available following program interruptions is particularly relevant to other non-communicable disease programs in low-income countries. Low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa increasingly face a double burden of disease, with high rates of infectious diseases compounded with increasing rates of non-communicable diseases (35-37). However, health systems in sub-Saharan Africa have been tailored to address infectious diseases, namely HIV, rather than non-communicable disease needs (38, 39). Variation over time in the outer setting (e.g., supply chain for essential medicines), inner setting (e.g., availability of functional glucometers), and characteristics of individuals (e.g., community health worker knowledge of diabetes) must be considered when developing, implementing, and re-implementing interventions non-communicable disease. For example, our study found that the lack of DM screening supplies at the clinic after the pilot ended was the main outer setting barrier that led to program interruption. Outer setting shortages of technologies and tools that the WHO deems as essential for non-communicable disease care are common in sub-Saharan Africa (40, 41). Another study including 53 health centers in Uganda found that only 62% had a glucometer and 13% had urine testing strips to screen for DM. Further, only 40% had a standard blood pressure cuff and 43% had an automated blood pressure machine, which are necessary for assessing hypertension (40). Although most labs had random blood glucose capabilities (92%), only 9% could measure hemoglobin A1c and 28% could conduct a lipid profile, which are necessary for diagnosing and monitoring DM and hyperlipidemia, respectively. Lastly, all health centers reported that they experienced at least one-stock of a non-communicable disease essential medicine within the last year. While a project that provides these technologies and resources might be effective to screen and treat non-communicable diseases in the short term, studies may not be sustainable without targeting the domestic supply chains themselves. Thus, an interruption framework for evaluating and targeting interruptions for re-implementation is critical while health systems for non-communicable diseases are further developed. In our study, we found that uncertainty in the supply chain (outer setting) hindered team learning (inner setting) and ultimately diminished the self-efficacy of practitioners (characteristics of individuals). These cascading failures could be addressed as part of a targeted re-implementation strategy by creating and disseminating tailored refresher training for key stakeholders. For example, providing targeted training to health teams in the inner setting would likely disrupt the cascading effect that decreased team learning has on individual’s self-efficacy. This training should also include the introduction of standardized protocols for dealing with stockouts in the clinic, given the lack of consensus among participants about who to contact and how to procure DM screening supplies during a stockout. We also found that the screening program in our study continued to be seen as compatible with community needs, culture, and priorities of the inner setting, as well as with motivations of practitioners. A targeted re-implementation strategy could draw on the elements that sustained during the program interruption to facilitate rapid buy-in and uptake from the community, clinic leadership, and practitioners. ### Strengths and Limitations Our study had several strengths. First, it is strengthened by its engagement with health workers through both ethnographic and interview methods. This approach enabled triangulation, enhancing the internal validity of findings. Second, the study was informed by the CFIR from the earliest planning stages through the final analysis. We adapted the interview guide from the standard CFIR guide and carried out the directed content analysis using pre-defined CFIR construct codes. Third, we conducted an additional round of coding using inductive content analysis to generate ‘open’ codes, which ultimately generated ecological insights that form the basis of our hybrid CFIR-Ecological Model. Finally, this study was strengthened by reflecting on a two-year timeframe, which enabled key informants to comment on long-term changes. However, this study had some limitations. Because we used purposive sampling from two public clinics in Kampala, the study setting and participants may not be representative of all public TB clinics in Kampala that participated in the earlier DM screening program. Nonetheless, many health workers report having previously worked at other public clinics in Kampala at the time of the implementation and spoke about their collective experiences. Furthermore, this study only captures the perspectives of the personnel at the inner-setting, clinic, and individual levels; thus, future studies are needed that explore interruptions in programs from the perspective of the outer setting stakeholders. ## Conclusion We critically analyzed the long-term sustainability of a program implementation in the face of outer setting instability and used this case study together with the CFIR to produce an approach for understanding the ecological dynamics of sustainability. This hybrid approach can be used to systematically assess factors that persisted and diminished during program interruptions at each ecological level, including the outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals. Explicitly situating the CFIR within an ecological model can clarify the cascading effects of program interruptions at each ecological level and inform re-implementation strategies. Future empirical studies are needed to apply, assess, and adapt this model and further develop the study of interruption in implementation science. ## Data Availability Data are available upon request to the corresponding author. ## Funding This work was supported by the Lindsay Fellowship for Research in Africa at the Yale MacMillan Center Council on African Studies and the NIH Medical Scientist Training Program Training Grant T32GM007205, which provided funding for RH to travel to and conduct interviews in Uganda. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ## Declaration of interests The authors do not have any competing interests to report. ## Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the participation of all the health workers and administrators who participated in our study and provided their insights. * Received September 23, 2021. * Revision received September 23, 2021. * Accepted September 29, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Theobald S, Brandes N, Gyapong M, El-Saharty S, Proctor E, Diaz T, Wanji S, Elloker S, Raven J, Elsey H, Bharal S, Pelletier D, Peters DH. Implementation research: new imperatives and opportunities in global health. Lancet. 2018;392(10160):2214–28. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32205-0&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30314860&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) 2. 2.English M, Nzinga J, Mbindyo P, Ayieko P, Irimu G, Mbaabu L. Explaining the effects of a multifaceted intervention to improve inpatient care in rural Kenyan hospitals--interpretation based on retrospective examination of data from participant observation, quantitative and qualitative studies. Implementation Science. 2011;6(124). 3. 3.Lestari T, Graham S, vandenBoogard C, Triasih R, Rini J, Poespoprodjo, Ubra RR, Kenangalem E, Mahendradhata Y, Anstey NM, Bailie RS, Ralph AP. Bridging the knowledge-practice gap in tuberculosis contact management in a high-burden setting: a mixed-methods protocol for a multicenter health system strengthening study. Implementation Science. 2019;14(1):31. 4. 4.English M. Designing a theory-informed, contextually appropriate intervention strategy to improve delivery of paediatric services in Kenyan hospitals. Implementation Science. 2013;8:39. 5. 5.Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science. 2009;4(1):886. 6. 6.Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science. 2013;8:117. 7. 7.Kyei-Nimakoh M, Carolan-Olah M, McCann TV. Access barriers to obstetric care at health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa-a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):110. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13643-017-0503-x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28587676&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) 8. 8.Sullivan BJ, Esmaili BE, Cunningham CK. Barriers to initiating tuberculosis treatment in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review focused on children and youth. Global Health Action. 2017;10(1):1290317. 9. 9.Armstrong-Hough M, Kishore SP, Byakika S, Mutungi G, Nunez-Smith M, Schwartz JI. Disparities in availability of essential medicines to treat non-communicable diseases in Uganda: a Poisson analysis using the Service Availability and Readiness Assessment. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0192332. 10. 10.Siddharthan T, Ramaiya K, Yonga G, Mutungi GN, Rabin TL, List JM, Kishore SP, Schwartz JI. Noncommunicable Diseases In East Africa: Assessing The Gaps In Care And Identifying Opportunities For Improvement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(9):1506–13. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToiaGVhbHRoYWZmIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjM0LzkvMTUwNiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA5LzI5LzIwMjEuMDkuMjMuMjEyNjM1OTAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 11. 11.Hwang B, Shroufi A, Gils T, Steele SJ, Grimsrud A, Boulle A, Yawa A, Stevenson S, Jankelowitz L, Versteeg-Mojanaga M, Govender I, Stephens J, Hill J, Duncan K, Cutsem Gv. Stock-outs of antiretroviral and tuberculosis medicines in South Africa: A national cross-sectional survey. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0212405. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0212405&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30861000&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) 12. 12.Armstrong-Hough M, Sharma S, Kishore SP, Akiteng AR, Schwartz JI. Variation in the availability and cost of essential medicines for non-communicable diseases in Uganda: A descriptive time series analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0241555. 13. 13.World Health Organization. Collaborative framework for care and control of tuberculosis and diabetes. 2015. 14. 14.Young F, Critchley JA, Johnstone LK, Unwin NC. A review of co-morbidity between infectious and chronic disease in Sub Saharan Africa: TB and diabetes mellitus, HIV and metabolic syndrome, and the impact of globalization. Global Health. 2009;5:9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1744-8603-5-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19751503&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) 15. 15.Harries AD, Kumar AMV, Satyanarayana S, Lin Y, Zachariah R, Lönnroth K, Kapur A. Addressing diabetes mellitus as part of the strategy for ending TB. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2016;110(3):173–9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/trstmh/trv111&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26884497&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) 16. 16.Hayashi S, Chandramohan D. Risk of active tuberculosis among people with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop Med Int Health. 2018;23(10):1058–70. 17. 17.Bahendeka S, Wesonga R, Mutungi G, Muwonge J, Neema S, Guwatudde D. Prevalence and correlates of diabetes mellitus in Uganda: a population-based national survey. Trop Med Int Health. 2016;21(3):405–16. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) 18. 18.Proctor E, Luke D, Calhoun A, McMillen C, Brownson R, McCrary S, Padek M. Sustainability of evidence-based healthcare: research agenda, methodological advances, and infrastructure support. Implementation Science. 2015;10(88). 19. 19.Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological systems theory: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 1992. 20. 20.Safaeinili N, Brown-Johnson C, Shaw JG, Mahoney M, Winget M. CFIR simplified: Pragmatic application of and adaptations to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for evaluation of a patient-centered care transformation within a learning health system. Learning Health Systems. 2019;4(1). 21. 21.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Global HIV & TB. Uganda Country Profile. 2019. 22. 22.Nshuti L, Neuhauser D, Johnson JL, Adatu F, Whalen CC. Public and private providers’ quality of care for tuberculosis patients in Kampala, Uganda. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2001;5(11):1006–12. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11716336&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000172014700005&link_type=ISI) 23. 23.World Health Organization. TB Country Profile: Uganda. 2015. 24. 24.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report 2019. 2019. 25. 25.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International journal for quality in health care. 2007;19(6):349–57. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/intqhc/mzm042&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17872937&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000251963800004&link_type=ISI) 26. 26.Tavory I, Timmermans S. Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2014. 27. 27.CFIR Research Team-Center for Clinical Management Research. Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [cited 2020]. Available from: [http://cfirguide.org](http://cfirguide.org). 28. 28.Kislov R. Engaging with theory: from theoretically informed to theoretically informative improvement research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(3):177–9. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicWhjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjI4LzMvMTc3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDkvMjkvMjAyMS4wOS4yMy4yMTI2MzU5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 29. 29.Morse JM. The Significance of Saturation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995. 30. 30.Ssengooba F, McPake B, Palmer N. Why performance-based contracting failed in Uganda – An “open-box” evaluation of a complex health system intervention. Social Science & Medicine. 2012;75(2):377–83. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.050&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22560799&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000305493600017&link_type=ISI) 31. 31.Zakumumpa H, Dube N, Damian RS, Rutebemberwa E. Understanding the dynamic interactions driving the sustainability of ART scale-up implementation in Uganda. Glob Health Res Policy. 2018;3(23). 32. 32.Scheirer MA, Dearing JW. An Agenda for Research on the Sustainability of Public Health Programs. American Journal of Public Health. 2011;101(11). 33. 33.Schell SF, Luke DA, Schooley MW, Elliott MB, Herbers SH, Mueller NB, Bunger AC. Public health program capacity for sustainability: a new framework. Implementation Science. 2013;8(15). 34. 34.Stirman SW, Kimberly J, Cook N, Calloway A, Castro F, Charns M. The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implementation Science. 2012;7(17). 35. 35.Addo J, Smeeth L, Leon DA. Hypertension in sub-saharan Africa: a systematic review. Hypertension. 2007;50(6):1012–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.093336&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) 36. 36.Mbanya JC, Motala AA, Sobngwi E, Assah FK, Enoru ST. Diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet. 2010;375(9733):2254–66. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60550-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20609971&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) 37. 37.Nyirenda MJ. Non-communicable diseases in sub-Saharan Africa: understanding the drivers of the epidemic to inform intervention strategies. Int Health. 2016;8(3):157–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/inthealth/ihw021&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27178673&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F09%2F29%2F2021.09.23.21263590.atom) 38. 38.Pastakia SD, Tran DN, Manji I, Wells C, Kinderknecht K, Ferris R. Building reliable supply chains for noncommunicable disease commodities: lessons learned from HIV and evidence needs. AIDS. 2018;32:S55–S61. 39. 39.Schwartz JI, Dunkle A, Akiteng AR, Birabwa-Male D, Kagimu R, Mondo CK, Mutungi G, Rabin TL, Skonieczny M, Sykes J, Mayanja-Kizza H. Towards reframing health service delivery in Uganda: the Uganda initiative for integrated Management of non-Communicable Diseases. Global Health Action. 2015;8:26537. 40. 40.Rogers HE, Akiteng AR, Mutungi G, Ettinger AS, Schwartz JI. Capacity of Ugandan public sector health facilities to prevent and control non-communicable diseases: an assessment based upon WHO-PEN standards. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):606. 41. 41.Peck R, Mghamba J, Vanobberghen F, Kavishe B, Rugarabamu V, Smeeth L, Hayes R, Grosskurth H, Kapiga S. Preparedness of Tanzanian health facilities for outpatient primary care of hypertension and diabetes: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(5):e285–92.