Dataset Information

Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Organizational contextual features have been recognized as important determinants for implementing evidence-based practices across healthcare settings for over a decade. However, implementation scientists have not reached consensus on which features are most important for implementing evidence-based practices. The aims of this review were to identify the most commonly reported organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings, and to describe how these features affect implementation.

Methods

An integrative review was undertaken following literature searches in CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from January 2005 to June 2017. English language, peer-reviewed empirical studies exploring organizational context in at least one implementation initiative within a healthcare setting were included. Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Inductive content analysis informed data extraction and reduction.

Results

The search generated 5152 citations. After removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 36 journal articles were included. The majority (n?=?20) of the study designs were qualitative, 11 were quantitative, and 5 used a mixed methods approach. Six main organizational contextual features (organizational culture; leadership; networks and communication; resources; evaluation, monitoring and feedback; and champions) were most commonly reported to influence implementation outcomes in the selected studies across a wide range of healthcare settings.

Conclusions

We identified six organizational contextual features that appear to be interrelated and work synergistically to influence the implementation of evidence-based practices within an organization. Organizational contextual features did not influence implementation efforts independently from other features. Rather, features were interrelated and often influenced each other in complex, dynamic ways to effect change. These features corresponded to the constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which supports the use of CFIR as a guiding framework for studies that explore the relationship between organizational context and implementation. Organizational culture was most commonly reported to affect implementation. Leadership exerted influence on the five other features, indicating it may be a moderator or mediator that enhances or impedes the implementation of evidence-based practices. Future research should focus on how organizational features interact to influence implementation effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Li SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5936626 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review.

Li Shelly-Anne SA Jeffs Lianne L Barwick Melanie M Stevens Bonnie B

Systematic reviews 20180505 1

<h4>Background</h4>Organizational contextual features have been recognized as important determinants for implementing evidence-based practices across healthcare settings for over a decade. However, implementation scientists have not reached consensus on which features are most important for implementing evidence-based practices. The aims of this review were to identify the most commonly reported organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices acro ...[more]

PMID: 29729669

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundContextual fit is an important variable in the implementation of evidence-based programs (EBPs). The objectives of the current study were to examine the psychometric properties of the adapted Self-Assessment of Contextual Fit (SACF) measure for HIV clinical care settings (calling it SACF-HIV) and explore how perceptions of contextual fit varied across two different interventions (an intervention to scale up tailored motivational interviewing and an individually focused HIV prevention intervention) and 12 clinical sites.MethodsWe collected SACF-HIV data as part of a larger cross-project implementation science study (ATN 153). The study sample includes 128 clinicians, community health workers, interventionists, adherence counselors, and other members of the prevention and care team who engage in the implementation of EBPs at 12 HIV prevention and clinical care sites in the USA. We assessed the internal consistency of the SACF-HIV using Cronbach's alpha and examined the sub-dimensionality of the scale with an exploratory factor analysis. To explore concurrent validity, we examined Pearson's correlation coefficients between the adapted scale and fit-related sub-scale scores from the Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes Scale-50 (EBPAS-50). Variation in perceptions of fit by intervention was examined using descriptive statistics.ResultsInternal consistency of the adapted scale was strong (α=0.895). Factor analyses revealed two sub-scales-one capturing general insights regarding contextual fit, such as perceptions of skill, experience, and alignment with client needs (loadings ranging from .5 to .84), and a second centering perceptions regarding implementation support, such as resources and administrative support (loadings ranging from .89 to .97). Concurrent validity was supported by statistically significant correlations in the expected direction with EBPAS-50 fit-related sub-scales (r=.33-.35, p ≤ 0.05). SACF-HIV mean fit scores varied by intervention and the difference was statistically significant (2.78 vs. 2.53, p < 0.05).ConclusionsThere are relatively few tools assessing perceptions of contextual fit in HIV clinical settings. These results suggest the 12-item adapted SACF is a reliable, valid global assessment of perceptions of contextual fit and implementation support. The SACF-HIV can be used by practitioners and researchers interested in understanding an implementation context when planning to prepare and support EBP implementation.Trial registrationTMI ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03681912; YMPH ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03488914.

Project description:Background:While stakeholder mapping is common in public policy, social sciences, and business management, this tool has not often been used in healthcare settings. We developed a new method of healthcare stakeholder mapping, which we call Contextual and Organizational Support Mapping of Stakeholders (COSMOS), to identify and assess key stakeholders in an implementation project. Stakeholder mapping allows the implementation team to assess and visually display all relevant stakeholders, their support for the project, and their ability to facilitate-or hinder-project implementation. Methods:The COSMOS model was developed to visualize the stakeholders involved in a hospital-based study conducted from 2013-2016. In this study, a new screen prompt and order set were embedded in the electronic health record to facilitate the identification and treatment of adult smokers admitted to the hospital. Physicians were the unit of randomization; physician behavior and tobacco quit rates among patients were followed for 1 year. Qualitative interviews with hospital administration, physicians, and information technology (IT) personnel (n=24) were conducted to identify the components and characteristics of the COSMOS. Results:The COSMOS consists of an organizational chart identifying all key stakeholders, with manipulation of colors and borders of the component boxes to indicate stakeholder support for the implementation project, and degree of criticality to its success. The COSMOS visualization informed the team's subsequent work by identifying potential impediments that might require additional attention to garner and maintain support throughout the project. In addition, the approach has proved to be a useful tool to explain these concepts to trainees in implementation science. Conclusion:The COSMOS schematic provides a visually rich means of identifying stakeholders, understanding their relationships to each other, displaying their level of support for the proposed implementation, and noting their criticality to the effort. The COSMOS can support researchers, project teams, administrators, and others engaged with implementation science-related work in healthcare, as well as other fields such as education, government, and industry.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple theories, models and frameworks have been developed to assist implementation of evidence-based practice. However, to date there has been no review of implementation literature specific to adolescent healthcare. This integrative review therefore aimed to determine what implementation science theories, models and frameworks have been applied, what elements of these frameworks have been identified as influential in promoting the implementation and sustainability of service intervention, and to what extent, in what capacity and at what time points has the contribution of adolescent consumer perspectives on evidence implementation been considered. METHODS: An integrative design was used and reported based on a modified form of the PRISMA (2020) checklist. Seven databases were searched for English language primary research which included any implementation science theory, model or framework developed for/with adolescents or applied in relation to adolescent healthcare services within the past 10 years. Content and thematic analysis were applied with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) used to frame analysis of the barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of evidence-informed interventions within youth health settings.ResultsFrom 8717 citations, 13 papers reporting 12 studies were retained. Nine different implementation science theories, frameworks or approaches were applied; six of 12 studies used the CFIR, solely or with other models. All CFIR domains were represented as facilitators and barriers for implementation in included studies. However, there was little or no inclusion of adolescents in the development or review of these initiatives. Only three mentioned youth input, occurring in the pre-implementation or implementation stages.ConclusionsThe few studies found for this review highlight the internationally under-developed nature of this topic. Flagging the importance of the unique characteristics of this particular age group, and of the interventions and strategies to target it, the minimal input of adolescent consumers is cause for concern. Further research is clearly needed and must ensure that youth consumers are engaged from the start and consistently throughout; that their voice is prioritised and not tokenistic; that their contribution is taken seriously. Only then will age-appropriate evidence implementation enable innovations in youth health services to achieve the evidence-based outcomes they offer.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2020 CRD42020201142 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=201142.

Project description:RationaleSeveral intensive care unit (ICU) organizational practices have been associated with improved patient outcomes. However, the uptake of these evidence-based practices is unknown.ObjectivesTo assess diffusion of ICU organizational practices across the state of Pennsylvania.MethodsWe conducted two web-based, cross-sectional surveys of ICU organizational practices in Pennsylvania acute care hospitals, in 2005 (chief nursing officer respondents) and 2014 (ICU nurse manager respondents).Measurements and main resultsOf 223 eligible respondents, nurse managers from 136 (61%) medical, surgical, mixed medical-surgical, cardiac, and specialty ICUs in 98 hospitals completed the 2014 survey, compared with 124 of 164 (76%) chief nursing officers in the 2005 survey. In 2014, daytime physician staffing models varied widely, with 23 of 136 (17%) using closed models and 33 (24%) offering no intensivist staffing. Nighttime intensivist staffing was used in 37 (27%) ICUs, 38 (28%) used nonintensivist attending staffing, and 24 (18%) had no nighttime attending physicians. Daily multidisciplinary rounds occurred in 93 (68%) ICUs. Regular participants included clinical pharmacists in 68 of 93 (73%) ICUs, respiratory therapists in 62 (67%), and advanced practitioners in 37 (39%). Patients and family members participated in rounds in 36 (39%) ICUs. Clinical protocols or checklists for mechanically ventilated patients were available in 128 of 133 (96%) ICUs, low tidal volume ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome in 54 of 132 (41%) ICUs, prone positioning for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in 37 of 134 (28%) ICUs, and family meetings in 19 of 134 (14%) ICUs. Among 61 ICUs that responded to both surveys, there was a significant increase in the proportion of ICUs using nighttime in-ICU attending physicians (23 [38%] in 2005 vs. 30 [49%] in 2014; P = 0.006).ConclusionsThe diffusion of evidence-based ICU organizational practices has been variable across the state of Pennsylvania. Only half of Pennsylvania ICUs have intensivists dedicated to the ICU. Variable numbers use clinical protocols for life-saving therapies, and few use structured family engagement strategies. In contrast, the diffusion of non-evidence-based practices, including overnight ICU attending physician staffing, is increasing. Future research should focus on promoting implementation of organizational evidence to promote high-quality ICU care.

Project description:Background/aims:The idea that champions are crucial to effective healthcare-related implementation has gained broad acceptance; yet the champion construct has been hampered by inconsistent use across the published literature. This integrative review sought to establish the current state of the literature on champions in healthcare settings and bring greater clarity to this important construct. Methods:This integrative review was limited to research articles in peer-reviewed, English-language journals published from 1980 to 2016. Searches were conducted on the online MEDLINE database via OVID and PubMed using the keyword "champion." Several additional terms often describe champions and were also included as keywords: implementation leader, opinion leader, facilitator, and change agent. Bibliographies of full-text articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed for additional references not yet identified via the main strategy of conducting keyword searches in MEDLINE. A five-member team abstracted all full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria. Results:The final dataset for the integrative review consisted of 199 unique articles. Use of the term champion varied widely across the articles with respect to topic, specific job positions, or broader organizational roles. The most common method for operationalizing champion for purposes of analysis was the use of a dichotomous variable designating champion presence or absence. Four studies randomly allocated of the presence or absence of champions. Conclusions:The number of published champion-related articles has markedly increased: more articles were published during the last two years of this review (i.e. 2015-2016) than during its first 30?years (i.e. 1980-2009).The number of champion-related articles has continued to increase sharply since the year 2000. Individual studies consistently found that champions were important positive influences on implementation effectiveness. Although few in number, the randomized trials of champions that have been conducted demonstrate the feasibility of using experimental design to study the effects of champions in healthcare.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the potential for Early Care and Education (ECE) settings to promote healthy habits, a gap exists between current practices and evidence-based practices (EBPs) for obesity prevention in childhood.MethodsWe will use an enhanced non-responder trial design to determine the effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of an adaptive implementation strategy for Together, We Inspire Smart Eating (WISE), while examining moderators and mediators of the strategy effect. WISE is a curriculum that aims to increase children's intake of carotenoid-rich fruits and vegetables through four evidence-based practices in the early care and education setting. In this trial, we will randomize sites that do not respond to low-intensity strategies to either (a) continue receiving low-intensity strategies or (b) receive high-intensity strategies. This design will determine the effect of an adaptive implementation strategy that adds high-intensity versus one that continues with low-intensity among non-responder sites. We will also apply explanatory, sequential mixed methods to provide a nuanced understanding of implementation mechanisms, contextual factors, and characteristics of sites that respond to differing intensities of implementation strategies. Finally, we will conduct a cost effectiveness analysis to estimate the incremental effect of augmenting implementation with high-intensity strategies compared to continuing low-intensity strategies on costs, fidelity, and child health outcomes.DiscussionWe expect our study to contribute to an evidence base for structuring implementation support in real-world ECE contexts, ultimately providing a guide for applying the adaptive implementation strategy in ECE for WISE scale-up. Our work will also provide data to guide implementation decisions of other interventions in ECE. Finally, we will provide the first estimate of relative value for different implementation strategies in this setting.Trial registrationNCT05050539 ; 9/20/21.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this endeavour is the capability of researchers, healthcare practitioners and managers to quantitatively evaluate implementation efforts using psychometrically sound instruments. To encourage and support the use of precise and accurate implementation outcome measures, this systematic review aimed to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings.MethodThe following data sources were searched from inception to March 2019, with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and the Cochrane library. Studies that evaluated the measurement properties of implementation outcome instruments in physical healthcare settings were eligible for inclusion. Proctor et al.'s taxonomy of implementation outcomes was used to guide the inclusion of implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Psychometric quality of the included instruments was assessed using the Contemporary Psychometrics checklist (ConPsy). Usability was determined by number of items per instrument.ResultsFifty-eight publications reporting on the measurement properties of 55 implementation outcome instruments (65 scales) were identified. The majority of instruments assessed acceptability (n = 33), followed by appropriateness (n = 7), adoption (n = 4), feasibility (n = 4), penetration (n = 4) and sustainability (n = 3) of evidence-based practice. The methodological quality of individual scales was low, with few studies rated as 'excellent' for reliability (6/62) and validity (7/63), and both studies that assessed responsiveness rated as 'poor' (2/2). The psychometric quality of the scales was also low, with 12/65 scales scoring 7 or more out of 22, indicating greater psychometric strength. Six scales (6/65) rated as 'excellent' for usability.ConclusionInvestigators assessing implementation outcomes quantitatively should select instruments based on their methodological and psychometric quality to promote consistent and comparable implementation evaluations. Rather than developing ad hoc instruments, we encourage further psychometric testing of instruments with promising methodological and psychometric evidence.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2017 CRD42017065348.

Dataset Information

Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets