Table 2.

CFIR constructs and examples of positive and negative indicators for the 17 constructs in this study

Construct and definition	Implementation facilitators	Implementation barriers
Innovation Characteristics Domain
Relative advantage: perception better or worse than existing programs	Perceived by staff or leadership as being a better option for programming relevant to age group and subject matter	Perceived to be same as or worse than other drug and alcohol youth programming available
Adaptability: perception of ability to modify program to fit site’s needs	Flexibility, inclusivity, and creative use of additional tools	Discomfort with and/or lack of ability to modify program
Complexity: how easy or hard the program is to deliver	Program perceived as easy, short, comfortable to deliver	Program perceived as difficult, overwhelming, and unfamiliar
Outer Setting Domain
Needs and resources: extent to which participants’ needs are known and prioritized	Good grasp of youths’ needs and program adjusted to better suit them	Unfamiliarity with youths’ needs or how programming can achieve better results
Inner Setting Domain
Networks and communications: informal/formal meetings at site	Frequent meetings, shared information to engage staff with programming	No meetings, discussions, or communications among leadership and staff around programming
Culture: consistency of staffing and site programming	Consistent staffing, little turnover, and programming info is passed on to new staff	Large turnover, burden on staff results in inconsistent programming
Implementation climate: general level of staff awareness/receptivity to program	Staff on board with and discuss new programs	No staff awareness and lack of acceptance for new programming
Compatibility: program fits within existing programming, mission, and time frame	Good fit with mission, staff qualities, experience, concerns of community, and timing of program	Not a good fit with staff or community and conflicts with other programming
Relative priority: shared perception of program’s importance within site	Program importance is highlighted to community	Scheduling issues and/or lack of interest or lack of perceived need for program
Leadership engagement: leaders’ commitment, involvement and accountability	Strong leadership, staff reported high commitment	No leadership support, leadership decentralized
Available resources: staff, space and time	Thorough, periodic review of staff and space resources	Inconsistent and/or unqualified staffing, no space
Access to knowledge and information: training on the mechanics of the program	Training and program information considered important for accurate delivery	Training did not occur and/or not all staff were trained, programming inconsistent
Implementation Process Domain
Planning: pre-implementation strategizing and ongoing program-refining activities	Detailed and ongoing planning process with staff and leadership input	No planning or understanding of what planning is
Formally appointed internal implementation leaders (FIL): individuals responsible for delivering program	Leadership/staff teamwork, evidence of skill, experience, and engagement	Leadership and/or staff have no confidence in FIL, inconsistent staffing, poorly qualified FIL
Innovation participants: youth recruitment, engagement and retention strategies	Strategies are used to increase youth interest, participation, and attendance	Recruitment issues, lack of youth interest, and inconsistent attendance
Goal-setting*: program goals are communicated and acted upon by staff	Goal-setting was specific, reviewed, and changed over time to meet needs/expectations	No goals established or discussed
Reflecting and evaluating: quantitative and qualitative feedback about progress and quality of program delivery	Reflecting and evaluation process used to control, shift focus, and make changes	No review of goals nor feedback given either during or after implementation

Note: Asterisk denotes a construct added to the original list of CFIR constructs.