Dataset Information

Is Theory Guiding Our Work? A Scoping Review on the Use of Implementation Theories, Frameworks, and Models to Bring Community Health Workers into Health Care Settings.

ABSTRACT: Community health workers (CHWs) are becoming a well-recognized workforce to help reduce health disparities and improve health equity. Although evidence demonstrates the value of engaging CHWs in health care teams, there is a need to describe best practices for integrating CHWs into US health care settings. The use of existing health promotion and implementation theories could guide the research and implementation of health interventions conducted by CHWs. We conducted a standard 5-step scoping review plus stakeholder engagement to provide insight into this topic. Using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, we identified CHW intervention studies in health care settings published between 2000 and 2017. Studies were abstracted by 2 researchers for characteristics and reported use of theory. Our final review included 50 articles published between January 2000 and April 2017. Few studies used implementation theories to understand the facilitators and barriers to CHW integration. Those studies that incorporated implementation theories used RE-AIM, intervention mapping, cultural tailoring, PRECEDE-PROCEED, and the diffusion of innovation. Although most studies did not report using implementation theories, some constructs of implementation such as fidelity or perceived benefits were assessed. In addition, studies that reported intervention development often cited specific theories, such as the transtheoretical or health belief model, that helped facilitate the development of their program. Our results are consistent with other literature describing poor uptake and use of implementation theory. Further translation of implementation theories for CHW integration is recommended.

SUBMITTER: Allen CG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6395551 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov/Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Theory Guiding Our Work? A Scoping Review on the Use of Implementation Theories, Frameworks, and Models to Bring Community Health Workers into Health Care Settings.

Allen Caitlin G CG Barbero Colleen C Shantharam Sharada S Moeti Refilwe R

Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP 20191101 6

Community health workers (CHWs) are becoming a well-recognized workforce to help reduce health disparities and improve health equity. Although evidence demonstrates the value of engaging CHWs in health care teams, there is a need to describe best practices for integrating CHWs into US health care settings. The use of existing health promotion and implementation theories could guide the research and implementation of health interventions conducted by CHWs. We conducted a standard 5-step scoping r ...[more]

PMID: 30180116

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRural healthcare has unique characteristics that affect the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions. Numerous theories, models, and frameworks have been developed to guide implementation of healthcare interventions, though not specific to rural healthcare. The present scoping review sought to identify the theories, models, and frameworks most frequently applied to rural health and propose an approach to rural health research that harnesses selected constructs from these theories, models, and frameworks. This resulting synthesis can serve as a guide to researchers, policy makers, and clinicians seeking to employ commonly used theories, models, and frameworks to rural health.MethodsWe used the Scopus abstract indexing service to identify peer-reviewed literature citing one or more of theories, models, or frameworks used in dissemination and implementation research and including the word "rural" in the Title, Abstract, or Keywords. We screened the remaining titles and abstracts to ensure articles met additional inclusion criteria. We conducted a full review of the resulting 172 articles to ensure they identified one or more discrete theory, model, or framework applied to research or quality improvement projects. We extracted the theories, models, and frameworks and categorized these as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, or evaluation frameworks.ResultsWe retained 61 articles of which 28 used RE-AIM, 11 used Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework, eight used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and six used the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS). Additional theories, models, and frameworks were cited in three or fewer reports in the literature. The 14 theories, models, and frameworks cited in the literature were categorized as seven process models, four determinant frameworks, one evaluation framework, and one classic theory.ConclusionsThe RE-AIM framework was the most frequently cited framework in the rural health literature, followed by CBPR, CFIR, and iPARIHS. A notable advantage of RE-AIM in rural healthcare settings is the focus on reach as a specified outcome, given the challenges of engaging a geographically diffuse and often isolated population. We present a rationale for combining the strengths of these theories, models, and frameworks to guide a research agenda specific to rural healthcare research.Systematic review registrationhttps://osf.io/fn2cd/.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a need for greater understanding of experiences implementing community-based primary health care in humanitarian settings and of the adjustments needed to ensure continuation of essential services and utilization of services by the population, and to contribute to effective emergency response. We reviewed the evidence base on community health workers (CHWs) in humanitarian settings, with the goal of improving delivery of essential services to the most vulnerable populations.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of published and grey literature related to health and nutrition services provided by CHWs in humanitarian settings. Extracted data from retained documents were analyzed inductively for key themes.ResultsOf 3709 documents screened, 219 were included in the review. Key findings from the literature include: 1) CHWs were often able to continue providing services during acute and protracted crises, including prolonged periods of conflict and insecurity and during population displacement. 2) CHWs carried out critical emergency response activities during acute crises. 3) Flexible funding facilitated transitions between development and humanitarian programming. 4) Communities that did not have a locally-resident CHW experienced reduced access to services when travel was limited. 5) Community selection of CHWs and engagement of respected local leaders were crucial for community trust and acceptance and high utilization of services. 6) Selection of local supervisors and use of mobile phones facilitated continued supervision. 7) Actions taken to maintain supplies included creating parallel supply chains, providing buffer stocks to CHWs, and storing commodities in decentralized locations. 8) When travel was restricted, reporting and data collection were continued using mobile phones and use of local data collectors. 9) CHWs and supervisors faced security threats and psychological trauma as a result of their work.ConclusionsTo achieve impact, policy makers and program implementers will have to address the bottlenecks to CHW service delivery common in stable low-income settings as well as the additional challenges unique to humanitarian settings. Future interventions should take into account the lessons learned from years of experience with implementation of community-based primary health care in humanitarian settings. There is also a need for rigorous assessments of community-based primary health care interventions in humanitarian settings.

Project description:BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are essential components of modern health system service delivery, particularly within acute care settings such as hospitals. Theories, models, and frameworks may assist in facilitating the implementation processes associated with CDSS innovation and its use within these care settings. These processes include context assessments to identify key determinants, implementation plans for adoption, promoting ongoing uptake, adherence, and long-term evaluation. However, there has been no prior review synthesizing the literature regarding the theories, models, and frameworks that have informed the implementation and adoption of CDSSs within hospitals.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to identify the theory, model, and framework approaches that have been used to facilitate the implementation and adoption of CDSSs in tertiary health care settings, including hospitals. The rationales reported for selecting these approaches, including the limitations and strengths, are described.MethodsA total of 5 electronic databases were searched (CINAHL via EBSCOhost, PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Embase) to identify studies that implemented or adopted a CDSS in a tertiary health care setting using an implementation theory, model, or framework. No date or language limits were applied. A narrative synthesis was conducted using full-text publications and abstracts. Implementation phases were classified according to the "Active Implementation Framework stages": exploration (feasibility and organizational readiness), installation (organizational preparation), initial implementation (initiating implementation, ie, training), full implementation (sustainment), and nontranslational effectiveness studies.ResultsA total of 81 records (42 full text and 39 abstracts) were included. Full-text studies and abstracts are reported separately. For full-text studies, models (18/42, 43%), followed by determinants frameworks (14/42,33%), were most frequently used to guide adoption and evaluation strategies. Most studies (36/42, 86%) did not list the limitations associated with applying a specific theory, model, or framework.ConclusionsModels and related quality improvement methods were most frequently used to inform CDSS adoption. Models were not typically combined with each other or with theory to inform full-cycle implementation strategies. The findings highlight a gap in the application of implementation methods including theories, models, and frameworks to facilitate full-cycle implementation strategies for hospital CDSSs.

Project description:BackgroundApplication of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users.MethodsA scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics.ResultsElectronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews (n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles (n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison.ConclusionsA systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions.Trial registrationA protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088564).

Project description:Background Engaging users of health research, namely knowledge users, as partners in the research process may to lead to evidence that is more relevant to the users. This may optimize the uptake of evidence in healthcare practice, resulting in improved health outcomes or more efficient healthcare systems. However, barriers to involving knowledge users in the research process exist. Theories, models and frameworks may help guide the process of involving knowledge users and address barriers to engaging with knowledge users in research; however, there is little evidence identifying or describing the theories, models and frameworks of health research partnerships. Objectives Identify and describe theories, models and frameworks of health research partnerships. Report on concepts of knowledge user engagement represented in identified theories, models and frameworks. Methods We conducted a scoping review. Database (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PCORI) and ancestry and snowball searches were utilized. Included articles were written in English, published between January 2005 and June 2021, specific to health, a research partnership, and referred to a theory, model or framework. No critical appraisal was conducted. We developed a coding framework to extract details related to the publication (e.g. country, year) and theory, model or framework (e.g. intended users, theoretical underpinning, methodology, methods of development, purpose, concepts of knowledge user engagement). One reviewer conducted data extraction. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were utilized to report the results. Results We identified 21 874 articles in screening. Thirty-nine models or frameworks were included in data analysis, but no theory. Two models or frameworks (5%) were underpinned by theory. Literature review was the method (n = 11, 28%) most frequently used to develop a model or framework. Guiding or managing a partnership was the most frequently reported purpose of the model/framework (n = 14, 36%). The most represented concept of knowledge user engagement was principles/values (n = 36, 92%). Conclusions The models and frameworks identified could be utilized by researchers and knowledge users to inform aspects of a health research partnership, such as guidance or implementation of a partnership. Future research evaluating the quality and applicability of the models and frameworks is necessary to help partners decide which model or framework to implement. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00877-4.

Dataset Information

Is Theory Guiding Our Work? A Scoping Review on the Use of Implementation Theories, Frameworks, and Models to Bring Community Health Workers into Health Care Settings.

Publications

Is Theory Guiding Our Work? A Scoping Review on the Use of Implementation Theories, Frameworks, and Models to Bring Community Health Workers into Health Care Settings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets