Dataset Information

The application of implementation science theories for population health: A critical interpretive synthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Over the last decade, the field of implementation science (IS) has yielded an array of theoretical approaches to clarify and understand how factors influence the application and scaling-up of evidence-based practice in health care. These developments have led to questions about whether IS theories and frameworks might be of value to population health researchers and decision makers. The purpose of this research was to conduct a critical interpretive synthesis to explore, if, and how, key IS theories and frameworks might inform population health interventions aimed at reducing the burden of illness across populations.

Methods

An initial list of theories and frameworks was developed based on previous published research and narrowed to focus on theories considered as formative for the field of IS. A standardized data extraction form was used to gather key features of the theories and critically appraise their relevance to population health interventions.

Results

Ten theories were included in the review and six deemed most applicable to population health based on their consideration of broader contextual and system-level factors. The remaining four were determined to have less relevant components for population health due to their limited consideration of macro-level factors, often focusing on micro (individual) and meso (organizational) level factors.

Conclusions

Theories and frameworks are important to guide the implementation and sustainability of population health interventions. The articulation of meso level factors common in IS theories may be of value to interventions targeted at the population level. However, some of the reviewed theories were limited in their consideration of broader contextual factors at the macro level (community, policy or societal). This critical interpretive synthesis also found that some theories lacked provision of practical guidance to address interventions targeting structural factors such as key social determinants of health (e.g., housing, income).

SUBMITTER: McIsaac JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6070464 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The application of implementation science theories for population health: A critical interpretive synthesis.

McIsaac Jessie-Lee JL Warner Grace G Lawrence Logan L Urquhart Robin R Price Sheri S Gahagan Jacqueline J McNally Mary M Jackson Lois A LA

AIMS public health 20180312 1

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>Over the last decade, the field of implementation science (IS) has yielded an array of theoretical approaches to clarify and understand how factors influence the application and scaling-up of evidence-based practice in health care. These developments have led to questions about whether IS theories and frameworks might be of value to population health researchers and decision makers. The purpose of this research was to conduct a critical interpretive synthesis to ex ...[more]

PMID: 30083567

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementing evidence-based care requires healthcare practitioners to do less of some things (de-implementation) and more of others (implementation). Variations in effectiveness of behaviour change interventions may result from failure to consider a distinction between approaches by which behaviour increases and decreases in frequency. The distinction is not well represented in methods for designing interventions. This review aimed to identify whether there is a theoretical rationale to support this distinction. METHODS:Using Critical Interpretative Synthesis, this conceptual review included papers from a broad range of fields (biology, psychology, education, business) likely to report approaches for increasing or decreasing behaviour. Articles were identified from databases using search terms related to theory and behaviour change. Articles reporting changes in frequency of behaviour and explicit use of theory were included. Data extracted were direction of behaviour change, how theory was operationalised, and theory-based recommendations for behaviour change. Analyses of extracted data were conducted iteratively and involved inductive coding and critical exploration of ideas and purposive sampling of additional papers to explore theoretical concepts in greater detail. RESULTS:Critical analysis of 66 papers and their theoretical sources identified three key findings: (1) 9 of the 15 behavioural theories identified do not distinguish between implementation and de-implementation (5 theories were applied to only implementation or de-implementation, not both); (2) a common strategy for decreasing frequency was substituting one behaviour with another. No theoretical basis for this strategy was articulated, nor were methods proposed for selecting appropriate substitute behaviours; (3) Operant Learning Theory makes an explicit distinction between techniques for increasing and decreasing frequency. DISCUSSION:Behavioural theories provide little insight into the distinction between implementation and de-implementation. Operant Learning Theory identified different strategies for implementation and de-implementation, but these strategies may not be acceptable in health systems. Additionally, if behaviour substitution is an approach for de-implementation, further investigation may inform methods or rationale for selecting the substitute behaviour.

Project description:Health systems guidance (HSG) are systematically developed statements that assist with decisions about options for addressing health systems challenges, including related changes in health systems arrangements. However, the development, appraisal, and reporting of HSG poses unique conceptual and methodological challenges related to the varied types of evidence that are relevant, the complexity of health systems, and the pre-eminence of contextual factors. To address this gap, we are conducting a program of research that aims to create a tool to support the appraisal of HSG and further enhance HSG development and reporting. The focus of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to determine quality criteria (concepts) relevant for this process.We applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach to knowledge synthesis that enabled an iterative, flexible, and dynamic analysis of diverse bodies of literature in order to generate a candidate list of concepts that will constitute the foundational components of the HSG tool. Using our review questions as compasses, we were able to guide the search strategy to look for papers based on their potential relevance to HSG appraisal, development, and reporting. The search strategy included various electronic databases and sources, subject-specific journals, conference abstracts, research reports, book chapters, unpublished data, dissertations, and policy documents. Screening the papers and data extraction was completed independently and in duplicate, and a narrative approach to data synthesis was executed.We identified 43 papers that met eligibility criteria. No existing review was found on this topic, and no HSG appraisal tool was identified. Over one third of the authors implicitly or explicitly identified the need for a high-quality tool aimed to systematically evaluate HSG and contribute to its development/reporting. We identified 30 concepts that may be relevant to the appraisal of HSG and were able to cluster them into three meaningful domains: process principles, content, and context principles.Our study showed the role that the quality criteria play in the development, appraisal, and reporting of HSG and demonstrated the link and resonance within and between the various concepts in the three domains.

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe introduction of the determinants of health has caused a shift towards understanding health from a holistic perspective as well as increased recognition of public health's contributions to the health of the population. Several frameworks exist to conceptualise healthcare systems, highlighting the stark contrast of frameworks unique to public health systems. The objectives of this study were to define public health systems and assess differences between healthcare systems and public health systems within established health systems frameworks.MethodsA critical interpretive synthesis was conducted. Databases searched included EBSCOhost, OVID, Scholars Portal, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Health Systems Evidence. Data extraction, coding and analysis followed a best-fit framework analysis method. Initial codes were based on a current leading health systems and policy classification scheme - health systems arrangements (governance, financial and delivery arrangements).ResultsA total of 5933 unique documents were identified and 67 were included in the analysis. Definitions of public health and public health systems varied significantly as did their roles and functions across jurisdictions. Public health systems arrangements generally followed those of health systems, with the addition of partnerships (community and inter-sectoral) and communication playing a larger role in public health. A public health systems framework and conceptualisation of how public health currently fits within health systems are presented.ConclusionsPublic health systems are unique and vital entities within health systems. In addition to examining how public health and public health systems have been defined within the literature, this review suggests that establishing the scope of public health is crucial to understanding its role within the larger health system and adds to the discourse around the relationship between public health, healthcare and population health. More broadly, this study addresses an important gap in understanding public health systems and provides conceptual and practical contributions as well as areas for future research.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs.ResultsWe examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the 'work' of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated.ConclusionsWe argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs' contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices-that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.

Project description:BackgroundPopulation health interventions (PHIs) have the potential to improve the health of large populations by systematically addressing underlying conditions of poor health outcomes (i.e., social determinants of health) and reducing health inequities. Scaling-up may be one means of enhancing the impact of effective PHIs. However, not all scale-up attempts have been successful. In an attempt to help guide the process of successful scale-up of a PHI, we look to the organizational readiness for change theory for a new perspective on how we may better understand the scale-up pathway. Using the change theory, our goal was to develop the foundations of an evidence-based, theory-informed framework for a PHI, through a critical examination of various PHI scale-up experiences documented in the literature.MethodsWe conducted a multi-step, critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to gather and examine insights from scale-up experiences detailed in peer-reviewed and grey literatures, with a focus on PHIs from a variety of global settings. The CIS included iterative cycles of systematic searching, sampling, data extraction, critiquing, interpreting, coding, reflecting, and synthesizing. Theories relevant to innovations, complexity, and organizational readiness guided our analysis and synthesis.ResultsWe retained and examined twenty different PHI scale-up experiences, which were extracted from 77 documents (47 peer-reviewed, 30 grey literature) published between 1995 and 2013. Overall, we identified three phases (i.e., Groundwork, Implementing Scale-up, and Sustaining Scale-up), 11 actions, and four key components (i.e., PHI, context, capacity, stakeholders) pertinent to the scale-up process. Our guiding theories provided explanatory power to various aspects of the scale-up process and to scale-up success, and an alternative perspective to the assessment of scale-up readiness for a PHI.ConclusionOur synthesis provided the foundations of the Scale-up Readiness Assessment Framework. Our theoretically-informed and rigorous synthesis methodology permitted identification of disparate processes involved in the successful scale-up of a PHI. Our findings complement the guidance and resources currently available, and offer an added perspective to assessing scale-up readiness for a PHI.

Dataset Information

The application of implementation science theories for population health: A critical interpretive synthesis.

Background and purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The application of implementation science theories for population health: A critical interpretive synthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure