| 1. |
- Bergström, Anna, 1983-, et al.
(författare)
-
The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice-a citation analysis of the literature
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Implementation science : IS. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1748-5908. ; 15:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was developed two decades ago and conceptualizes successful implementation (SI) as a function (f) of the evidence (E) nature and type, context (C) quality, and the facilitation (F), [SI = f (E,C,F)]. Despite a growing number of citations of theoretical frameworks including PARIHS, details of how theoretical frameworks are used remains largely unknown. This review aimed to enhance the understanding of the breadth and depth of the use of the PARIHS framework. METHODS: This citation analysis commenced from four core articles representing the key stages of the framework's development. The citation search was performed in Web of Science and Scopus. After exclusion, we undertook an initial assessment aimed to identify articles using PARIHS and not only referencing any of the core articles. To assess this, all articles were read in full. Further data extraction included capturing information about where (country/countries and setting/s) PARIHS had been used, as well as categorizing how the framework was applied. Also, strengths and weaknesses, as well as efforts to validate the framework, were explored in detail. RESULTS: The citation search yielded 1613 articles. After applying exclusion criteria, 1475 articles were read in full, and the initial assessment yielded a total of 367 articles reported to have used the PARIHS framework. These articles were included for data extraction. The framework had been used in a variety of settings and in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. With regard to types of use, 32% used PARIHS in planning and delivering an intervention, 50% in data analysis, 55% in the evaluation of study findings, and/or 37% in any other way. Further analysis showed that its actual application was frequently partial and generally not well elaborated. CONCLUSIONS: In line with previous citation analysis of the use of theoretical frameworks in implementation science, we also found a rather superficial description of the use of PARIHS. Thus, we propose the development and adoption of reporting guidelines on how framework(s) are used in implementation studies, with the expectation that this will enhance the maturity of implementation science.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bridel, Claire, et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnostic Value of Cerebrospinal Fluid Neurofilament Light Protein in Neurology : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JAMA Neurology. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2168-6149 .- 2168-6157. ; 76:9, s. 1035-1048
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance Neurofilament light protein (NfL) is elevated in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of a number of neurological conditions compared with healthy controls (HC) and is a candidate biomarker for neuroaxonal damage. The influence of age and sex is largely unknown, and levels across neurological disorders have not been compared systematically to date.Objectives To assess the associations of age, sex, and diagnosis with NfL in CSF (cNfL) and to evaluate its potential in discriminating clinically similar conditions.Data Sources PubMed was searched for studies published between January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2016, reporting cNfL levels (using the search terms neurofilament light and cerebrospinal fluid) in neurological or psychiatric conditions and/or in HC.Study Selection Studies reporting NfL levels measured in lumbar CSF using a commercially available immunoassay, as well as age and sex.Data Extraction and Synthesis Individual-level data were requested from study authors. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the fixed effects of age, sex, and diagnosis on log-transformed NfL levels, with cohort of origin modeled as a random intercept.Main Outcome and Measure The cNfL levels adjusted for age and sex across diagnoses.Results Data were collected for 10 059 individuals (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [18.8] years; 54.1% female). Thirty-five diagnoses were identified, including inflammatory diseases of the central nervous system (n = 2795), dementias and predementia stages (n = 4284), parkinsonian disorders (n = 984), and HC (n = 1332). The cNfL was elevated compared with HC in a majority of neurological conditions studied. Highest levels were observed in cognitively impaired HIV-positive individuals (iHIV), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and Huntington disease. In 33.3% of diagnoses, including HC, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer disease (AD), and Parkinson disease (PD), cNfL was higher in men than women. The cNfL increased with age in HC and a majority of neurological conditions, although the association was strongest in HC. The cNfL overlapped in most clinically similar diagnoses except for FTD and iHIV, which segregated from other dementias, and PD, which segregated from atypical parkinsonian syndromes.Conclusions and Relevance These data support the use of cNfL as a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage and indicate that age-specific and sex-specific (and in some cases disease-specific) reference values may be needed. The cNfL has potential to assist the differentiation of FTD from AD and PD from atypical parkinsonian syndromes.
|
|
| 3. |
- Tistad, Malin, et al.
(författare)
-
Training and support for the role of facilitator in implementation of innovations in health and community care : a scoping review protocol
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Systematic Reviews. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 2046-4053. ; 12:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundImplementing and sustaining innovations in clinical practice, such as evidence-based practices, programmes, and policies, is frequently described as challenging. Facilitation as a strategy for supporting implementation requires a facilitator, i.e. an individual with a designated role to support the implementation process. A growing number of studies report that facilitation can help tackle the challenges in implementation efforts. To optimise the potential contribution of facilitation as a strategy to improve the implementation of new practices, there is a need to enhance understanding about what training and support is required for individuals in the facilitator role.The objective of this scoping review is to map how facilitators have been trained for, and supported in, the facilitator role in implementation studies in health and community care. Specifically, the review aims to examine what is reported on training and support of facilitators in terms of learning outcomes, content, dose, mode of delivery, learning activities, and qualifications of the trainers and how the facilitators perceive training and support.MethodsThis scoping review will follow the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review checklist. We will include articles in which (a) facilitation is deployed as an implementation strategy, with identified facilitator roles targeting staff and managers, to support the implementation of specified innovations in health or community care, and (b) training and/or support of facilitators is reported. We will exclude articles where facilitation is directed to education or training in specific clinical procedures or if facilitation supports the implementation of general quality improvement systems. All types of peer-reviewed studies and study protocols published in English will be included. A systematic search will be performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (embase.com), Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL (Ebsco).DiscussionThe proposed scoping review will provide a systematic mapping of the literature on the training and support of implementation facilitators and contribute useful knowledge within the field of implementation science to inform future facilitation initiatives.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wallin, Lars, et al.
(författare)
-
Newborn individual development care and assessment program (NIDCAP) : a systematic review of the literature
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. - : Wiley. - 1545-102X .- 1741-6787. ; 6:2, s. 54-69
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Important advancements have been made in the care of preterm infants. Health services have introduced various methods aimed at promoting attachment, breastfeeding, and neurological development. The Newborn Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program (NIDCAP), developed to stimulate preterm infants at levels adapted to the child's degree of neurological maturity, is increasingly being used.Objectives: The aim was to investigate the impact of NIDCAP on the psychomotor development, neurological status, medical/nursing care outcomes, and parental perceptions. A further aim was to evaluate the cost-related effects of NIDCAP.Data Extraction and Analysis: A literature search up to September 2007 was performed. The reviewed papers were assessed for methodological quality and only statistically significant findings were extracted.Findings: The evidence compiled on the effects of NIDCAP is based on 12 articles from six randomized controlled trials that included approximately 250 children. Each of the studies was assessed as having medium quality. Most of the studies were small and many investigated a huge number of outcome variables, which decreased their scientific strength. On outcome variables in which a significant difference was found between the intervention (NIDCAP) and control groups, most studies showed better results for the NIDCAP group. This was particularly valid for cognitive and psychomotor development. Four studies also showed a reduced need for respiratory support for the NIDCAP group. No studies were identified that weighed the total cost of NIDCAP against its effects.Conclusions: Despite promising findings, primarily on cognitive and motor development, the scientific evidence on the effects of NIDCAP is limited. Shortcomings in design and methods in the reviewed studies hamper far-reaching claims on the effectiveness of the method. Scientific grounds for assessing the effects of NIDCAP would be substantially enhanced by a sufficiently comprehensive study with extended follow-up and a clear focus on a few important outcome variables.
|
|
