Gaps in communication theory paradigms when conducting implementation science research: qualitative observations from interviews with administrators, implementors, and evaluators of rural health programs.

被引量：- 发表：1970

Process evaluation of two large randomized controlled trials to understand factors influencing family physicians' use of antibiotic audit and feedback reports.

被引量：- 发表：1970

Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework.

Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts. A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework. A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers' reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities).

被引量：- 发表：1970

The effectiveness of a knowledge translation intervention on the implementation of NEWS2 in nursing homes, a pragmatic cluster RCT.

Improving the uptake of relevant and reliable research is an important priority in long-term care to achieve sustainable and high-quality services for the increasingly older population. The purpose was to assess the effectiveness of a tailored, adaptive and a multifaceted KT capacity program, relative to usual practice, on the implementation of National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2). This study was carried out as a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial. The capacity program consisted of an educational part to address implementation capacity gaps and a facilitation-upon-implementation part to address a relevant knowledge gap in nursing homes. A collective decision was made to address the challenge of early detection of clinical deterioration among nursing home residents, by implementing the (NEWS2) as clinical innovation. Public nursing homes in a Norwegian municipality (n = 21) with a total of 1 466 beds were eligible for inclusion. The study-period spanned over a 22-month period, including a 12-month follow-up. Data was extracted from the Electronic Patient Journal system and analyzed using multilevel growth model analysis. The intervention had a large effect on the use of NEWS2 among care staff in intervention nursing homes, compared to the control group (standardized mean difference, d = 2.42). During the final month of the implementation period, residents in the intervention group was assessed with NEWS2 1.44 times (95% CI: 1.23, 1.64) per month, which is almost four times more often than in the control group (mean = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.57). During the follow-up period, the effect of the intervention was not only sustained in the intervention group but there was a substantial increase in the use of NEWS2 in both the intervention (mean = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.55, 1.96) and control groups (mean = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.27, 1.65). This tailored implementation strategy had a large effect on the use of NEWS2 among care staff, demonstrating that integrated knowledge translation strategies can be a promising strategy to achieve evidence-based care in the nursing home sector. ISRCTN12437773 . Registered 19/3 2020, retrospectively.

被引量：- 发表：1970

Models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.

The implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a cyclical process in which the evaluation stage can facilitate continuous improvement. Implementation science has utilized theoretical approaches, such as models and frameworks, to understand and address this process. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the models and frameworks used to assess the implementation of CPGs. A systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane methodology, with adaptations to the "selection process" due to the unique nature of this review. The findings were reported following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines. Electronic databases were searched from their inception until May 15, 2023. A predetermined strategy and manual searches were conducted to identify relevant documents from health institutions worldwide. Eligible studies presented models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs. Information on the characteristics of the documents, the context in which the models were used (specific objectives, level of use, type of health service, target group), and the characteristics of each model or framework (name, domain evaluated, and model limitations) were extracted. The domains of the models were analyzed according to the key constructs: strategies, context, outcomes, fidelity, adaptation, sustainability, process, and intervention. A subgroup analysis was performed grouping models and frameworks according to their levels of use (clinical, organizational, and policy) and type of health service (community, ambulatorial, hospital, institutional). The JBI's critical appraisal tools were utilized by two independent researchers to assess the trustworthiness, relevance, and results of the included studies. Database searches yielded 14,395 studies, of which 80 full texts were reviewed. Eight studies were included in the data analysis and four methodological guidelines were additionally included from the manual search. The risk of bias in the studies was considered non-critical for the results of this systematic review. A total of ten models/frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs were found. The level of use was mainly policy, the most common type of health service was institutional, and the major target group was professionals directly involved in clinical practice. The evaluated domains differed between the models and there were also differences in their conceptualization. All the models addressed the domain "Context", especially at the micro level (8/12), followed by the multilevel (7/12). The domains "Outcome" (9/12), "Intervention" (8/12), "Strategies" (7/12), and "Process" (5/12) were frequently addressed, while "Sustainability" was found only in one study, and "Fidelity/Adaptation" was not observed. The use of models and frameworks for assessing the implementation of CPGs is still incipient. This systematic review may help stakeholders choose or adapt the most appropriate model or framework to assess CPGs implementation based on their specific health context. PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) registration number: CRD42022335884. Registered on June 7, 2022.

被引量：- 发表：1970