| 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. |
- 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).
|
|
| 3. |
- 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).
|
|
