Dataset Information

An updated protocol for a systematic review of implementation-related measures.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Implementation science is the study of strategies used to integrate evidence-based practices into real-world settings (Eccles and Mittman, Implement Sci. 1(1):1, 2006). Central to the identification of replicable, feasible, and effective implementation strategies is the ability to assess the impact of contextual constructs and intervention characteristics that may influence implementation, but several measurement issues make this work quite difficult. For instance, it is unclear which constructs have no measures and which measures have any evidence of psychometric properties like reliability and validity. As part of a larger set of studies to advance implementation science measurement (Lewis et al., Implement Sci. 10:102, 2015), we will complete systematic reviews of measures that map onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al., Implement Sci. 4:50, 2009) and the Implementation Outcomes Framework (Proctor et al., Adm Policy Ment Health. 38(2):65-76, 2011), the protocol for which is described in this manuscript. METHODS:Our primary databases will be PubMed and Embase. Our search strings will be comprised of five levels: (1) the outcome or construct term; (2) terms for measure; (3) terms for evidence-based practice; (4) terms for implementation; and (5) terms for mental health. Two trained research specialists will independently review all titles and abstracts followed by full-text review for inclusion. The research specialists will then conduct measure-forward searches using the "cited by" function to identify all published empirical studies using each measure. The measure and associated publications will be compiled in a packet for data extraction. Data relevant to our Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) will be independently extracted and then rated using a worst score counts methodology reflecting "poor" to "excellent" evidence. DISCUSSION:We will build a centralized, accessible, searchable repository through which researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders can identify psychometrically and pragmatically strong measures of implementation contexts, processes, and outcomes. By facilitating the employment of psychometrically and pragmatically strong measures identified through this systematic review, the repository would enhance the cumulativeness, reproducibility, and applicability of research findings in the rapidly growing field of implementation science.

SUBMITTER: Lewis CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5918558 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An updated protocol for a systematic review of implementation-related measures.

Lewis Cara C CC Mettert Kayne D KD Dorsey Caitlin N CN Martinez Ruben G RG Weiner Bryan J BJ Nolen Elspeth E Stanick Cameo C Halko Heather H Powell Byron J BJ

Systematic reviews 20180425 1

<h4>Background</h4>Implementation science is the study of strategies used to integrate evidence-based practices into real-world settings (Eccles and Mittman, Implement Sci. 1(1):1, 2006). Central to the identification of replicable, feasible, and effective implementation strategies is the ability to assess the impact of contextual constructs and intervention characteristics that may influence implementation, but several measurement issues make this work quite difficult. For instance, it is uncle ...[more]

PMID: 29695295

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSepsis is associated with a dysregulated host response to infection and impaired endogenous corticosteroid metabolism. As such, therapeutic use of exogenous corticosteroids is a promising adjunctive intervention. Despite a large number of trials examining this research question, uncertainty persists regarding the effect of corticosteroids on survival in sepsis. Several large randomised controlled trials have been published recently prompting a re-evaluation of the available literature.Methods and analysisA rigorous and reproducible search and screening process from a Cochrane review on the same topic was comprehensive to October 2014. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane trial registry and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible randomised controlled trials investigating the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis from September 2014. Outcomes have been chosen by a semi-independent guideline panel, created in the context of a parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendation on the topic. This panel includes clinicians, content experts, methodologists and patient representatives, who will help identify patient-important outcomes that are critical for deciding whether to use or not use corticosteroids in sepsis. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify eligible studies; a third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. We will use RevMan to pool effect estimates from included studies for each outcome using a random-effect model. We will present the results as relative risk with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes and as mean difference or standardised mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% CI. We will assess the certainty of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will conduct a priori subgroup analyses, which have been chosen by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendation panel.Ethics and disseminationThe aim of this systematic review is to summarise the updated evidence on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.Trial registration numberCRD42017058537.

Project description:BackgroundPublic policy has tremendous impacts on population health. While policy development has been extensively studied, policy implementation research is newer and relies largely on qualitative methods. Quantitative measures are needed to disentangle differential impacts of policy implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and outcomes to ensure intended benefits are realized. Implementation outcomes include acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, compliance/fidelity, feasibility, penetration, sustainability, and costs. This systematic review identified quantitative measures that are used to assess health policy implementation determinants and outcomes and evaluated the quality of these measures.MethodsThree frameworks guided the review: Implementation Outcomes Framework (Proctor et al.), Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al.), and Policy Implementation Determinants Framework (Bullock et al.). Six databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL Plus, PsycInfo, PAIS, ERIC, and Worldwide Political. Searches were limited to English language, peer-reviewed journal articles published January 1995 to April 2019. Search terms addressed four levels: health, public policy, implementation, and measurement. Empirical studies of public policies addressing physical or behavioral health with quantitative self-report or archival measures of policy implementation with at least two items assessing implementation outcomes or determinants were included. Consensus scoring of the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale assessed the quality of measures.ResultsDatabase searches yielded 8417 non-duplicate studies, with 870 (10.3%) undergoing full-text screening, yielding 66 studies. From the included studies, 70 unique measures were identified to quantitatively assess implementation outcomes and/or determinants. Acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and compliance were the most commonly measured implementation outcomes. Common determinants in the identified measures were organizational culture, implementation climate, and readiness for implementation, each aspects of the internal setting. Pragmatic quality ranged from adequate to good, with most measures freely available, brief, and at high school reading level. Few psychometric properties were reported.ConclusionsWell-tested quantitative measures of implementation internal settings were under-utilized in policy studies. Further development and testing of external context measures are warranted. This review is intended to stimulate measure development and high-quality assessment of health policy implementation outcomes and determinants to help practitioners and researchers spread evidence-informed policies to improve population health.RegistrationNot registered.

Project description:BackgroundA blockchain is a digitized, decentralized, distributed public ledger that acts as a shared and synchronized database that records cryptocurrency transactions. Despite the shift toward digital platforms enabled by electronic medical records, demonstrating a will to reform the health care sector, health systems face issues including security, interoperability, data fragmentation, timely access to patient data, and silos. The application of health care blockchains could enable data interoperability, enhancement of precision medicine, and reduction in prescription frauds through implementing novel methods in access and patient consent.ObjectiveTo summarize the evidence on the strategies and frameworks utilized to implement blockchains for patient data in health care to ensure privacy and improve interoperability and scalability. It is anticipated this review will assist in the development of recommendations that will assist key stakeholders in health care blockchain implementation, and we predict that the evidence generated will challenge the health care status quo, moving away from more traditional approaches and facilitating decision making of patients, health care providers, and researchers.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ProQuest Technology Collection and Engineering Index will be conducted. Two experienced independent reviewers will conduct titles and abstract screening followed by full-text reading to determine study eligibility. Data will then be extracted onto data extraction forms before using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to appraise the quality of included randomized studies and the Risk of Bias in nonrandomized studies of Interventions to assess the quality of nonrandomized studies. Data will then be analyzed and synthesized.ResultsDatabase searches will be initiated in September 2018. We expect to complete the review in January 2019.ConclusionsThis review will summarize the strategies and frameworks used to implement blockchains in health care to increase data privacy, interoperability, and scalability. This review will also help clarify if the strategies and frameworks required for the operationalization of blockchains in health care ensure the privacy of patient data while enabling efficiency, interoperability, and scalability.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/10994.

Project description:BackgroundPrevention of hospital-acquired infections, in the clinical field of orthopedics and traumatology especially surgical site infections, is one of the major concerns of patients and physicians alike. Many studies have been conducted proving effective infection prevention measures. The clinical setting, however, requires strategies to transform this knowledge into practice.Question/purposeAs part of the HYGArzt-Project ("Proof Of Effectivity And Efficiency Of Implementation Of Infection Prevention (IP) Measures By The Physician Responsible For Infection Prevention Matters In Traumatology/Orthopedics"), the objective of this study was to identify effective implementation strategies for IP (infection prevention) measures in orthopedics and trauma surgery.MethodsThe systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A review protocol was drafted prior to the literature search (not registered). Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE between January 01, 1950 and June 01, 2019. We searched for all papers dealing with infection and infection control measures in orthopedics and traumatology, which were then scanned for implementation contents. All study designs were considered eligible. Exclusion criteria were language other than English or German and insufficient reporting of implementation methods. Analyzed outcome parameters were study design, patient cohort, infection prevention measure, implementation methods, involved personnel, reported outcome of the studies and study period.ResultsThe literature search resulted in 8414 citations. 13 records were eligible for analysis (all published between 2001 and 2019). Studies were primarily prospective cohort studies featuring various designs and including single IP measures to multi-measure IP bundles. Described methods of implementation were heterogeneous. Main outcome parameters were increase of adherence (iA) to infection prevention (IP) measures or decrease in surgical site infection rate (dSSI%). Positive results were reported in 11 out of 13 studies. Successful implementation methods were building of a multidisciplinary team (considered in 8 out of 11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% in 5 studies, concerning iA in five studies]), standardization of guidelines (considered in 10/11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% in 5 studies, concerning iA in seven studies]), printed or electronic information material (for patient and/or staff; considered in 9/11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% 4/4, concerning iA 5/5]), audits and regular meetings, personal training and other interactive measures as well as regular feedback (considered in 7/11 successful studies each). Personnel most frequently involved were physicians (of those, most frequently surgeons) and nursing professions.ConclusionAlthough evidence was scarce and quality-inconsistent, we found that adhering to a set of implementation methods focusing on interdisciplinary and interactive /interpersonal work might be an advisable strategy when planning IP improvement interventions in orthopedics and traumatology.

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics.ResultsWe included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions.ConclusionsCompared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact.Trial registrationThe protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4nxpr ) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

Project description:IntroductionDespite decreased rates of new infections, HIV/AIDS continues to impact certain US populations. In order to achieve the goals laid out in the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) in the US initiative, implementation science is needed to expand the sustained use of effective prevention and treatment interventions, particularly among priority populations at risk for and living with HIV/AIDS. Over 200 HIV-related implementation studies have been funded by the US National Institutes of Health. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the literature identifying implementation determinants (barriers and facilitators) and categorising implementation strategies across the continuum of HIV prevention and care in the USA is appropriate and needed to enhance current knowledge and help achieve the goals laid out in the EHE national strategic plan.Methods and analysisThis systematic review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Between November 2020 and January 2022, a broad database search strategy of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science was conducted to capture implementation-related studies along the HIV prevention and care continuum. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were: conducted in the USA, published after the year 2000, written in English, related to HIV/AIDS, focused on outcomes related to dissemination and implementation (ie, did not test/evaluate/explore implementation determinants or strategies) and were behavioural studies (ie, not basic science). We plan to conduct three systematic reviews to identify and categorise determinants and strategies associated with three HIV focus areas: pre-exposure prophylaxis, testing/diagnosing and linkage to care, and treatment. Determinants will be coded according to an adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2.0. Implementation strategies and outcomes will be categorised in accordance with existing taxonomies and frameworks.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable. No original data will be collected. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and via online tools.Prospero registration numberCRD42021233089.

Project description:ImportanceGender-affirming care is a key clinical area that can benefit from implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-based implementation strategy.ObjectiveTo identify (1) PROMs previously implemented for gender-affirming care and constructs measured, (2) how patients completed PROMs and how results were reported and used, and (3) barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation.Evidence reviewIn this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 25, 2021, and updated on December 16, 2022. Gray literature was searched through gray literature database, online search engine, and targeted website searching. Inclusion criteria were (1) original articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirming care to (3) patients accessing gender-affirming care. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to evaluate quality of included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021233080).FindingsIn total, 286 studies were included, representing 85 395 transgender and nonbinary patients from more than 30 countries. A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care. No studies described using an implementation science theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment. Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity. Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engaging key stakeholders and participants as part of developing an implementation plan, and organizational climate.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow evidence-based approaches in implementation science. There was also a lack of patient input in creating implementation strategies, suggesting a need for patient-centered approaches to PROM implementation. Frameworks created from these results can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming care and have potential generalizability for other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

Dataset Information

An updated protocol for a systematic review of implementation-related measures.

Publications

An updated protocol for a systematic review of implementation-related measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets