| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Hälleberg Nyman, Maria, 1968-, et al.
(författare)
-
Identifying the knowledge to translate : the example of urinary incontinence in older people
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Nordic Conference on Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: While urinary incontinence (UI) is a common and worrying issue among older people, promoting the use of evidence to prevent UI onset has rarely been studied. An earlier study that was conducted in nursing homes suggests that UI can be better assessed and managed, but the prevention of UI onset requires attention to the issue by staff within acute care settings. Aim: To report on the internal facilitators’ (IF) transition, identifying the 'know-do gap' between evidence and practice in UI prevention in orthopaedic care.Methods: The Onset PrevenTion of Incontinence in Orthopaedic Nursing and rehabilitation (OPTION) pilot was carried out in two Swedish orthopaedic units of different size and location. The pilot project included a programme to support nursing and rehab staff to facilitate knowledge translation (KT). Five IFs were interviewed at baseline, and one and three months after the intervention was completed, and non-participant observations were performed during the KT-intervention. Interviews and observations were triangulated, depicting when and how the IFs identified the present, local UI practice, the evidence on UI, and the know-do gap in preventing UI onset in older patients undergoing hip surgery.Results: Preliminary results indicate that before the study, neither the IFs nor their fellows at the units were aware that they could prevent UI onset. Rather, through mapping their context and matching the evidence provided by the dialogue with the experts in the KTintervention, the IFs became aware of which practice was evidence based and which evidence to implement, and how to facilitate KT and promote evidence use.Conclusion: The OPTION pilot indicates that KT can be promoted by tailored implementation strategies and tailoring evidence, supported by IFs awareness and understanding of the local know-do gap, and strategies to overcome barriers and promote use of evidence.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Rycroft-Malone, J., et al.
(författare)
-
A realist process evaluation within the Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE) cluster randomised controlled international trial: An exemplar
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1748-5908. ; 13:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Facilitation is a promising implementation intervention, which requires theory-informed evaluation. This paper presents an exemplar of a multi-country realist process evaluation that was embedded in the first international randomised controlled trial evaluating two types of facilitation for implementing urinary continence care recommendations. We aimed to uncover what worked (and did not work), for whom, how, why and in what circumstances during the process of implementing the facilitation interventions in practice. Methods: This realist process evaluation included theory formulation, theory testing and refining. Data were collected in 24 care home sites across four European countries. Data were collected over four time points using multiple qualitative methods: observation (372h), interviews with staff (n=357), residents (n=152), next of kin (n=109) and other stakeholders (n=128), supplemented by facilitator activity logs. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process focused on realist theory refinement and testing. Results: The content and approach of the two facilitation programmes prompted variable opportunities to align and realign support with the needs and expectations of facilitators and homes. This influenced their level of confidence in fulfilling the facilitator role and ability to deliver the intervention as planned. The success of intervention implementation was largely dependent on whether sites prioritised their involvement in both the study and the facilitation programme. In contexts where the study was prioritised (including release of resources) and where managers and staff support was sustained, this prompted collective engagement (as an attitude and action). Internal facilitators' (IF) personal characteristics and abilities, including personal and formal authority, in combination with a supportive environment prompted by managers triggered the potential for learning over time. Learning over time resulted in a sense of confidence and personal growth, and enactment of the facilitation role, which resulted in practice changes. Conclusion: The scale and multi-country nature of this study provided a novel context to conduct one of the few trial embedded realist-informed process evaluations. In addition to providing an explanatory account of implementation processes, a conceptual platform for future facilitation research is presented. Finally, a realist-informed process evaluation framework is outlined, which could inform future research of this nature. © 2018 The Author(s).
|
|
| 9. |
- Seers, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE): An international cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate two models of facilitation informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1748-5908. ; 13:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Health care practice needs to be underpinned by high quality research evidence, so that the best possible care can be delivered. However, evidence from research is not always utilised in practice. This study used the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework as its theoretical underpinning to test whether two different approaches to facilitating implementation could affect the use of research evidence in practice. Methods: A pragmatic clustered randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation was used. The study took place in four European countries across 24 long-term nursing care sites, for people aged 60years or more with documented urinary incontinence. In each country, sites were randomly allocated to standard dissemination, or one of two different types of facilitation. The primary outcome was the documented percentage compliance with the continence recommendations, assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24months after the intervention. Data were analysed using STATA15, multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models were fitted to scores for compliance with the continence recommendations, adjusting for clustering. Results: Quantitative data were obtained from reviews of 2313 records. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome (documented compliance with continence recommendations) between study arms and all study arms improved over time. Conclusions: This was the first cross European randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation that sought to test different methods of facilitation. There were no statistically significant differences in compliance with continence recommendations between the groups. It was not possible to identify whether different types and "doses" of facilitation were influential within very diverse contextual conditions. The process evaluation (Rycroft-Malone et al., Implementation Science. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0) revealed the models of facilitation used were limited in their ability to overcome the influence of contextual factors. © 2018 The Author(s).
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
- Seers, Kate, et al.
(författare)
-
FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence) : a study protocol
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1748-5908. ; 7:25
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make to implementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process for translating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of two different models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management; assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing a pro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practice community. SETTING AND SAMPLE: Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for people aged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinence METHODS AND DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and two different programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome is compliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents with incontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailed contextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin, observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realistic evaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502.
|
|
| 12. |
- Squires, Janet E., et al.
(författare)
-
The Implementation in Context (ICON) Framework: A meta-framework of context domains, attributes and features in healthcare
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Health Research Policy and Systems. - 1478-4505. ; 21:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background There is growing evidence that context mediates the effects of implementation interventions intended to increase healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is elusive. The purpose of this study was to advance conceptual clarity on context by developing the Implementation in Context Framework, a meta-framework of the context domains, attributes and features that can facilitate or hinder healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence and the effectiveness of implementation interventions in clinical practice.Methods We conducted a meta-synthesis of data from three interrelated studies: (1) a concept analysis of published literature on context (n = 70 studies), (2) a secondary analysis of healthcare professional interviews (n = 145) examining context across 11 unique studies and (3) a descriptive qualitative study comprised of interviews with heath system stakeholders (n = 39) in four countries to elicit their tacit knowledge on the attributes and features of context. A rigorous protocol was followed for the meta-synthesis, resulting in development of the Implementation in Context Framework. Following this meta-synthesis, the framework was further refined through feedback from experts in context and implementation science.Results In the Implementation in Context Framework, context is conceptualized in three levels: micro (individual), meso (organizational), and macro (external). The three levels are composed of six contextual domains: (1) actors (micro), (2) organizational climate and structures (meso), (3) organizational social behaviour (meso), (4) organizational response to change (meso), (5) organizational processes (meso) and (6) external influences (macro). These six domains contain 22 core attributes of context and 108 features that illustrate these attributes.Conclusions The Implementation in Context Framework is the only meta-framework of context available to guide implementation efforts of healthcare professionals. It provides a comprehensive and critically needed understanding of the context domains, attributes and features relevant to healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. The Implementation in Context Framework can inform implementation intervention design and delivery to better interpret the effects of implementation interventions, and pragmatically guide implementation efforts that enhance evidence uptake and sustainability by healthcare professionals.
|
|
