Dataset Information

Dissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The need to better understand implementing evidence-informed dementia care has been recognised in multiple priority-setting partnerships. The aim of this scoping review was to give an overview of the state of the evidence on implementation and dissemination of dementia care, and create a systematic evidence map.

Methods

We sought studies that addressed dissemination and implementation strategies or described barriers and facilitators to implementation across dementia stages and care settings. Twelve databases were searched from inception to October 2015 followed by forward citation and grey literature searches. Quantitative studies with a comparative research design and qualitative studies with recognised methods of data collection were included. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers with discrepancies resolved by a third where necessary. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Strategies were mapped according to the ERIC compilation.

Results

Eighty-eight studies were included (30 quantitative, 34 qualitative and 24 mixed-methods studies). Approximately 60% of studies reported implementation strategies to improve practice: training and education of professionals (94%), promotion of stakeholder interrelationships (69%) and evaluative strategies (46%) were common; financial strategies were rare (15%). Nearly 70% of studies reported barriers or facilitators of care practices primarily within residential care settings. Organisational factors, including time constraints and increased workload, were recurrent barriers, whereas leadership and managerial support were often reported to promote implementation. Less is known about implementation activities in primary care and hospital settings, or the views and experiences of people with dementia and their family caregivers.

Conclusion

This scoping review and mapping of the evidence reveals a paucity of robust evidence to inform the successful dissemination and implementation of evidence-based dementia care. Further exploration of the most appropriate methods to evaluate and report initiatives to bring about change and of the effectiveness of implementation strategies is necessary if we are to make changes in practice that improve dementia care.

SUBMITTER: Lourida I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5513053 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map.

Lourida Ilianna I Abbott Rebecca A RA Rogers Morwenna M Lang Iain A IA Stein Ken K Kent Bridie B Thompson Coon Jo J

BMC geriatrics 20170714 1

<h4>Background</h4>The need to better understand implementing evidence-informed dementia care has been recognised in multiple priority-setting partnerships. The aim of this scoping review was to give an overview of the state of the evidence on implementation and dissemination of dementia care, and create a systematic evidence map.<h4>Methods</h4>We sought studies that addressed dissemination and implementation strategies or described barriers and facilitators to implementation across dementia st ...[more]

PMID: 28709402

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplementing technology-based counseling as a complex intervention in dementia care poses challenges such as adaptation to stakeholders' needs and limited resources. While studies have examined the effectiveness of technology-based counseling, its successful implementation remains largely unexplored.ObjectiveWe aimed to review the knowledge about the implementation success of technology-based counseling interventions for people with dementia and their informal caregivers.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review and systematically searched CINAHL, the Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection databases (April 2021) in combination with citation searching and web searching (November 2021). Studies reporting on technology-based counseling interventions for people with dementia or their informal caregivers were included, irrespective of the design. We used the conceptual framework for implementation outcomes to operationalize implementation success and applied the outcomes acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability as categories to inform data extraction. We identified dimensions within the categories and synthesized results narratively and graphically.ResultsWe included 52 publications reporting on 27 technology-based counseling interventions. The studies were conducted in 9 countries and published between 1993 and 2021. As the design of the included studies varied, the number of participants and the type of data reported varied as well. The intervention programs were heterogeneous and ranged from single counseling interventions (such as helpline services) to counseling as part of a multicomponent program. Telephone, email, videoconferencing, social media (respectively chats), and web-based platforms were used for delivering counseling. We found data on appropriateness for all interventions and data on acceptability for most interventions, describing aspects such as consumer-perceived usefulness and helpfulness of services, as well as satisfaction. Information on the other categories of adoption, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability was fragmented.ConclusionsThe scope and depth of information on conceptual categories of the implementation success of technology-based counseling for people with dementia and informal caregivers varied. The data only partially covered the concept of implementation success, which highlights the need for a systematic evaluation accompanying the implementation. The application of theoretical approaches for implementation and adherence to the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions are required to promote the implementation of complex interventions and to comprehensively assess implementation success.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021245473; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=245473.

Project description:IntroductionAgeing in place, supported by formal home and community services and informal caregivers, is the most used long-term care option for people with dementia (PwD). Informal caregivers are inundated by their caregiving responsibilities and resultantly suffer consequences. Despite the multitude of clinical effectiveness studies on interventions that support informal caregivers, there is a paucity of information regarding their implementation process. This scoping review aims to identify the implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and barriers and facilitators that impede or support the dissemination and uptake of interventions that support informal caregivers of PwD at home.Methods and analysisThis protocol is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Protocols, and the scoping review will follow the systematic steps of the PRISMA-Extension for Scoping Reviews guideline. The search strategy will include publications produced from inception to 8 March 2021 and will be conducted in the search engines Embase, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), followed by a three-stage approach. First, title and abstracts will be screened by two independent reviewers. Second, full-text articles will also be screened by both reviewers and, in case of disagreement, by a third reviewer. The first two stages are based on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Reference lists of the final included studies will also be checked for relevant articles. Data from the final included studies will be extracted and synthesised using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation and Proctor's implementation outcomes to ensure homogenous and standardised reporting of implementation information.Ethics and disseminationThe review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at geriatric and implementation conferences to inform researchers, health service planners and practice professionals with an overview of the existing literature to guide them in the effective implementation of caregiver-focused interventions in dementia support.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research.MethodsMEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias.ResultsOf the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%).ConclusionsDe-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design.RegistrationOSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.

Project description:The importance of providing evidence-based palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly acknowledged as important for patient outcomes. In Ireland, evidence-based guidance has been developed in order to address key features of dementia palliative care, including the management of pain, medications and hydration and nutrition. The aim of this study was to identify and explore the factors affecting the implementation of evidence-based guidance on dementia palliative care. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation (CFIR) guided a mixed-method pre-post study. One guidance document pertaining to the management of pain, medication or hydration and nutrition was implemented in three long-term care facilities. Participatory action research in the form of work-based learning groups was used to implement the guidance, drawing on a situational analysis (pre-implementation). Staff questionnaires and audits were conducted pre- and post-implementation while champion interviews were also conducted post-implementation. Features of the guidance, the inner setting components such as readiness to change, and the process of implementation were most frequently identified as impacting implementation. Components of the outer setting, such as external policy incentives and individual characteristics, featured less commonly. Data from qualitative interviews revealed that the guidance was perceived as advantageous or complimentary to previous care provided. Within the inner setting, leadership and support from other colleagues facilitated implementation. However, limited availability of other healthcare professionals to assist with carrying out guidance actions presented a barrier in some facilities. The external facilitators of the work-based learning groups (WBLGs) were perceived as experienced and encouraged active participation and reflection on practices. Despite the challenge of releasing staff to attend the WBLGs, quantitative data demonstrated reduced staff de-motivation amongst those who did attend was noted post-implementation (pre-Mdn = 19.50 versus post-Mdn = 22.00, U = 497.00, p = 0.07). A situational analysis informed by the CFIR framework in conjunction with a participatory action research approach helped to advance the implementation of the guidance. The progress of implementation depended on the extent to which evidence-based care was previously being implemented at each site. Post-implementation analysis using CFIR identified challenges to address in future projects such as staff cover and timing of training to facilitate attendance for staff with different working hours. Facilitators included multidisciplinary engagement with the intervention and champions at each site to support the implementation process.

Project description:BackgroundThe implementation of evidence-based interventions for people with dementia is complex and challenging. However, successful implementation might be a key element to ensure evidence-based practice and high quality of care. There is a need to improve implementation processes in dementia care by better understanding the arising challenges. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify recent knowledge concerning barriers and facilitators to implementing nurse-led interventions in dementia care.MethodsWe performed a scoping review using the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Studies explicitly reporting on the implementation process and factors influencing the implementation of a nurse-led intervention in dementia care in all settings were included. We searched eight databases from January 2015 until January 2019. Two authors independently selected the studies. For data analysis, we used an inductive approach to build domains and categories.ResultsWe included 26 studies in the review and identified barriers as well as facilitators in five domains: policy (e.g. financing issues, health insurance), organisation (e.g. organisational culture and vision, resources, management support), intervention/implementation (e.g. complexity of the intervention, perceived value of the intervention), staff (e.g. knowledge, experience and skills, attitude towards the intervention), and person with dementia/family (e.g. nature and stage of dementia, response of persons with dementia and their families).ConclusionsBesides general influencing factors for implementing nursing interventions, we identified dementia-specific factors reaching beyond already known barriers and facilitators. A pre-existing person-centred culture of care as well as consistent team cultures and attitudes have a facilitating effect on implementation processes. Furthermore, there is a need for interventions that are highly flexible and sensitive to patients' condition, needs and behaviour.

Project description:BackgroundEffective dissemination of research to health and social care practitioners enhances clinical practice and evidence-based care. Social media use has potential to facilitate dissemination to busy practitioners.ObjectiveThis is a protocol for a systematic review that will quantitatively synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of social media, compared with no social media, for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. Social media platforms, formats, and sharing mechanisms used for effective dissemination of research evidence will also be identified and compared.MethodsElectronic database searches (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, LISTA, and OpenGrey) will be conducted from January 1, 2010, to January 10, 2023, for studies published in English. Randomized, nonrandomized, pre-post study designs or case studies evaluating the effect of social media on dissemination of research evidence to postregistration health and social care practitioners will be included. Studies that do not involve social media or dissemination or those that evaluate dissemination of nonresearch information (eg, multisource educational materials) to students or members of the public only, or without quantitative data on outcomes of interest, will be excluded. Screening will be carried out by 2 independent reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment, using either the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, will be completed by 2 independent reviewers. Outcomes of interest will be reported in 4 domains (reach, engagement, dissemination, and impact). Data synthesis will include quantitative comparisons using narrative text, tables, and figures. A meta-analysis of standardized pooled effects will be undertaken, and subgroup analyses will be applied, if appropriate.ResultsSearches and screening will be completed by the end of May 2023. Data extraction and analyses will be completed by the end of July 2023, after which findings will be synthesized and reported by the end of October 2023.ConclusionsThis systematic review will summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of social media for the dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. The limitations of the evidence may include multiple outcomes or methodological heterogeneity that limit meta-analyses, potential risk of bias in included studies, and potential publication bias. The limitations of the study design may include potential insensitivity of the electronic database search strategy. The findings from this review will inform the dissemination practice of health and care research.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/45684.

Dataset Information

Dissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Dissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets