Dataset Information

Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures.

ABSTRACT: The field of implementation science (IS) encompasses a broad range of constructs and uses measures from a variety of disciplines. However, there has been little standardization of measures or agreement on definitions of constructs across different studies, fields, authors, or research groups.We describe a collaborative, web-based activity using the United States National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) portal that uses a wiki platform to focus discussion and engage the research community to enhance the quality and harmonization of measures for IS health-related research and practice. We present the history, process, and preliminary data from the GEM Dissemination & Implementation (D&I) Campaign on IS measurement.The GEM D&I Campaign has been ongoing for eight weeks as of this writing, and has used a combination of expert opinion and crowd-sourcing approaches. To date it has listed definitions for 45 constructs and summarized information on 120 measures. Usage of the website peaked at a rate of 124 views from 89 visitors on week seven. Users from seven countries have contributed measures and/or constructs, shared experience in using different measures, contributed comments, and identified research gaps and needs.Thus far, this campaign has provided information about different IS measures, their associated characteristics, and comments. The next step is to rate these measures for quality and practicality. This resource and ongoing activity have potential to advance the quality and harmonization of IS measures and constructs, and we invite readers to contribute to the process.

SUBMITTER: Rabin BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3541131 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures.

Rabin Borsika A BA Purcell Peyton P Naveed Sana S Moser Richard P RP Henton Michelle D MD Proctor Enola K EK Brownson Ross C RC Glasgow Russell E RE

Implementation science : IS 20121211

<h4>Background</h4>The field of implementation science (IS) encompasses a broad range of constructs and uses measures from a variety of disciplines. However, there has been little standardization of measures or agreement on definitions of constructs across different studies, fields, authors, or research groups.<h4>Methods</h4>We describe a collaborative, web-based activity using the United States National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) portal that uses a wiki platform to fo ...[more]

PMID: 23231885

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a fundamental gap in understanding the causal mechanisms by which strategies for implementing evidence-based practices address local barriers to effective, appropriate service delivery. Until this gap is addressed, scientific knowledge and practical guidance about which implementation strategies to use in which contexts will remain elusive. This research project aims to identify plausible strategy-mechanism linkages, develop causal models for mechanism evaluation, produce measures needed to evaluate such linkages, and make these models, methods, and measures available in a user-friendly website. The specific aims are as follows: (1) build a database of strategy-mechanism linkages and associated causal pathway diagrams, (2) develop psychometrically strong, pragmatic measures of mechanisms, and (3) develop and disseminate a website of implementation mechanisms knowledge for use by diverse stakeholders.MethodsFor the first aim, a combination of qualitative inquiry, expert panel methods, and causal pathway diagramming will be used to identify and confirm plausible strategy-mechanism linkages and articulate moderators, preconditions, and proximal and distal outcomes associated with those linkages. For the second aim, rapid-cycle measure development and testing methods will be employed to create reliable, valid, pragmatic measures of six mechanisms of common strategies for which no high-quality measures exist. For the third aim, we will develop a user-friendly website and searchable database that incorporates user-centered design, disseminating the final product using social marketing principles.DiscussionOnce strategy-mechanism linkages are identified using this multi-method approach, implementation scientists can use the searchable database to develop tailored implementation strategies and generate more robust evidence about which strategies work best in which contexts. Moreover, practitioners will be better able to select implementation strategies to address their specific implementation problems. New horizons in implementation strategy development, optimization, evaluation, and deployment are expected to be more attainable as a result of this research, which will lead to enhanced implementation of evidence-based interventions for cancer control, and ultimately improvements in patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundIn order to close the gap between discoveries that could improve health, and widespread impact on routine health care practice, there is a need for greater attention to the factors that influence dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices. Evidence synthesis projects (e.g., systematic reviews) could contribute to this effort by collecting and synthesizing data relevant to dissemination and implementation. Such an advance would facilitate the spread of high-value, effective, and sustainable interventions.ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to evaluate the feasibility of extracting factors related to implementation during evidence synthesis in order to enhance the replicability of successes of studies of interventions in health care settings.DesignDrawing on the implementation science literature, we suggest 10 established implementation measures that should be considered when conducting evidence synthesis projects. We describe opportunities to assess these constructs in current literature and illustrate these methods through an example of a systematic review.SubjectsTwenty-nine studies of interventions aimed at improving clinician-patient communication in clinical settings.Key resultsWe identified acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, intervention complexity, penetration, reach, and sustainability as factors that are feasible and appropriate to extract during an evidence synthesis project.ConclusionsTo fully understand the potential value of a health care innovation, it is important to consider not only its effectiveness, but also the process, demands, and resource requirements involved in downstream implementation. While there is variation in the degree to which intervention studies currently report implementation factors, there is a growing demand for this information. Abstracting information about these factors may enhance the value of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis efforts, improving the dissemination and adoption of interventions that are effective, feasible, and sustainable across different contexts.

Project description:BackgroundMany interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts.MethodsWe used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts.ResultsThe CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct.ConclusionThe CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.

Project description:Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear the brunt of communicable and non-communicable diseases and experience higher mortality and poor health outcomes compared to resource-rich countries. Chronic resource deficits in LMICs impede their ability to successfully address vexing health issues. Implementation science provides researchers with an approach to develop specific interventions that can generate and/or maximize resources to facilitate the implementation of other public health interventions, in resource-constrained LMIC settings. Resources generated from these interventions could be in the form of increased health workers' skills, task shifting to free up higher-skilled health workers, increasing laboratory capacity, and using supply chain innovations to make medications available. Pivotal to the success of such interventions is ensuring feasibility in the LMIC context. We selected and appraised three case studies of evidence-based resource-generating health interventions based in LMICs (Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Madagascar), which generated or maximized resources to facilitate ongoing health services. We used a determinant implementation framework-Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify and map contextual factors that are reported to influence implementation feasibility in an LMIC setting. Contextual factors influencing the feasibility of these interventions included leadership engagement, local capacity building and readiness for research and implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs), infrastructural support for multilevel scale-up, and cultural and contextual adaptations. These factors highlight the importance of utilizing implementation science frameworks to evaluate, guide, and execute feasible public health interventions and projects in resource-limited settings. Within LMICs, we recommend EBPs incorporate feasible resource-generating components in health interventions to ensure improved and sustained optimal health outcomes.

Project description:Background:Implementation science has been growing as discipline in the past decades, producing an increasing number of models in the area. On the other hand, most frameworks are intended to guide the implementation of programs, focusing on identifying elements and stages that increase their success. This article aims to structure this discussion, proposing a simplified tool that synthesizes common elements of other frameworks, and highlight the usefulness to use implementation science not only in identifying successful implementation strategies but as a tool to assess gaps in global health initiatives. Methods:The study was carried out through a combined methodology that included an initial search of implementation science frameworks, experts' opinions, and the use of references in frameworks to elaborate a list of articles to be reviewed. A total of 52 articles were analyzed, identifying their definitions of implementation science and the elements of different frameworks. Results:The analysis of articles allowed identifying the main goals and definitions of implementation science. In a second stage, frameworks were classified into "time-based", "component-based" and "mixed", and common elements of each type of model were used to propose a synthetic framework with six elements: Diagnosis, Intervention provider/ system, Intervention, Recipient, Environment, and Evaluation. Finally, this simplified framework was used to identify gaps in global health was using The Lancet Global Health Series. Potential areas of intervention arise for five different global health issues: malaria, non-communicable diseases, maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis. Prioritization strategies differ for the different health issues, and the proposed framework can help identify and classify all these different proposals. Conclusions:There is a huge variety of definitions and models in implementation science. The analysis showed the usefulness of applying an implementation science approach to identify and prioritize gaps in implementation strategies in global health.

Dataset Information

Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures.

Publications

Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets