Dataset Information

Translating evidence in complex systems: a comparative review of implementation and improvement frameworks.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

An increasing number of implementation and improvement frameworks seek to describe and explain how change is made in healthcare. This paper aims to explore how existing frameworks conceptualize the influence of complexity in translating evidence into practice in healthcare.

Data sources

A database was interrogated using a search strategy to identify publications that present frameworks and models for implementation and improvement.

Study selection

Ten popular implementation and improvement frameworks were purposively selected.

Data extraction

Comparative analysis was conducted using an analytical framework derived from SHIFT-Evidence, a framework that conceptualizes complexity in implementation and improvement initiatives.

Results

Collectively the frameworks accounted for key concepts of translating evidence in complex systems: understanding the uniqueness of each setting; the interdependency of practices/processes and the need to respond to unpredictable events and emergent learning. The analysis highlighted heterogeneity of the frameworks in their focus on different aspects of complexity. Differences include the extent to which problems and solutions are investigated or assumed; whether endpoints are defined as the uptake of interventions or achievement of goals; and emphasis placed on fixed-term interventions versus continual improvement. None of the individual frameworks reviewed incorporated all the implications of complexity, as described by SHIFT-Evidence.

Conclusion

This research identifies the differences in how implementation and improvement frameworks consider complexity, suggesting that SHIFT-Evidence offers a more comprehensive overview compared with the other frameworks. The similarity of concepts across the frameworks suggests growing consensus in the literature, with SHIFT-Evidence providing a conceptual bridge between the implementation and improvement fields.

SUBMITTER: Reed JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6464095 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReduction or elimination of inappropriate, ineffective, or potentially harmful healthcare services and public health programs can help to ensure limited resources are used effectively. Frameworks and models (FM) are valuable tools in conceptualizing and guiding the study of de-implementation. This scoping review sought to identify and characterize FM that can be used to study de-implementation as a phenomenon and identify gaps in the literature to inform future model development and application for research.MethodsWe searched nine databases and eleven journals from a broad array of disciplines (e.g., healthcare, public health, public policy) for de-implementation studies published between 1990 and June 2020. Two raters independently screened titles and abstracts, and then a pair of raters screened all full text records. We extracted information related to setting, discipline, study design, methodology, and FM characteristics from included studies.ResultsThe final search yielded 1860 records, from which we screened 126 full text records. We extracted data from 27 articles containing 27 unique FM. Most FM (n = 21) were applicable to two or more levels of the Socio-Ecological Framework, and most commonly assessed constructs were at the organization level (n = 18). Most FM (n = 18) depicted a linear relationship between constructs, few depicted a more complex structure, such as a nested or cyclical relationship. Thirteen studies applied FM in empirical investigations of de-implementation, while 14 articles were commentary or review papers that included FM.ConclusionDe-implementation is a process studied in a broad array of disciplines, yet implementation science has thus far been limited in the integration of learnings from other fields. This review offers an overview of visual representations of FM that implementation researchers and practitioners can use to inform their work. Additional work is needed to test and refine existing FM and to determine the extent to which FM developed in one setting or for a particular topic can be applied to other contexts. Given the extensive availability of FM in implementation science, we suggest researchers build from existing FM rather than recreating novel FM.RegistrationNot registered.

Project description:Governance of the health system is a relatively new concept and there are gaps in understanding what health system governance is and how it could be assessed. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to describe the concept of governance and the theories underpinning as applied to health systems; and to identify which frameworks are available and have been applied to assess health systems governance. Frameworks were reviewed to understand how the principles of governance might be operationalized at different levels of a health system. Electronic databases and web portals of international institutions concerned with governance were searched for publications in English for the period January 1994 to February 2016. Sixteen frameworks developed to assess governance in the health system were identified and are described. Of these, six frameworks were developed based on theories from new institutional economics; three are primarily informed by political science and public management disciplines; three arise from the development literature and four use multidisciplinary approaches. Only five of the identified frameworks have been applied. These used the principal-agent theory, theory of common pool resources, North's institutional analysis and the cybernetics theory. Governance is a practice, dependent on arrangements set at political or national level, but which needs to be operationalized by individuals at lower levels in the health system; multi-level frameworks acknowledge this. Three frameworks were used to assess governance at all levels of the health system. Health system governance is complex and difficult to assess; the concept of governance originates from different disciplines and is multidimensional. There is a need to validate and apply existing frameworks and share lessons learnt regarding which frameworks work well in which settings. A comprehensive assessment of governance could enable policy makers to prioritize solutions for problems identified as well as replicate and scale-up examples of good practice.

Project description:BackgroundTask-sharing is a promising strategy to expand mental healthcare in low-resource settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Research on how to best implement task-sharing mental health interventions, however, is hampered by an incomplete understanding of the barriers and facilitators to their implementation. This review aims to systematically identify implementation barriers and facilitators in evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions using an implementation science lens, organizing factors across a novel, integrated implementation science framework.MethodsPubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Embase were used to identify English-language, peer-reviewed studies using search terms for three categories: "mental health," "task-sharing," and "LMIC." Articles were included if they: focused on mental disorders as the main outcome(s); included a task-sharing intervention using or based on an evidence-based practice; were implemented in an LMIC setting; and included assessment or data-supported analysis of barriers and facilitators. An initial conceptual model and coding framework derived from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework was developed and iteratively refined to create an integrated conceptual framework, the Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of Task-Sharing Mental Health Interventions (BeFITS-MH), which specifies 37 constructs across eight domains: (I) client characteristics, (II) provider characteristics, (III) family and community factors, (IV) organizational characteristics, (V) societal factors, (VI) mental health system factors, (VII) intervention characteristics, and (VIII) stigma.ResultsOf the 26,935 articles screened (title and abstract), 192 articles underwent full-text review, yielding 37 articles representing 28 unique intervention studies that met the inclusion criteria. The most prevalent facilitators occur in domains that are more amenable to adaptation (i.e., the intervention and provider characteristics domains), while salient barriers occur in domains that are more challenging to modulate or intervene on-these include constructs in the client characteristics as well as the broader societal and structural levels of influence (i.e., the organizational, mental health system domains). Other notable trends include constructs in the family and community domains occurring as barriers and as facilitators roughly equally, and stigma constructs acting exclusively as barriers.ConclusionsUsing the BeFITS-MH model we developed based on implementation science frameworks, this systematic review provides a comprehensive identification and organization of barriers and facilitators to evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions in LMICs. These findings have important implications for ongoing and future implementation of this critically needed intervention strategy, including the promise of leveraging task-sharing intervention characteristics as sites of continued innovation, the importance of but relative lack of engagement with constructs in macro-level domains (e.g., organizational characteristics, stigma), and the need for more delineation of strategies for task-sharing mental health interventions that researchers and implementers can employ to enhance implementation in and across levels.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020161357.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The relevance of context in implementation science is reflected in the numerous theories, frameworks, models and taxonomies that have been proposed to analyse determinants of implementation (in this paper referred to as determinant frameworks). This scoping review aimed to investigate and map how determinant frameworks used in implementation science were developed, what terms are used for contextual determinants for implementation, how the context is conceptualized, and which context dimensions that can be discerned. METHODS:A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to October 2017, and supplemented with implementation science text books and known published overviews. Publications in English that described a determinant framework (theory, model, taxonomy or checklist), of which context was one determinant, were eligible. Screening and inclusion were done in duplicate. Extracted data were analysed to address the study aims. A qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach was carried out concerning the development and core context dimensions of the frameworks. The review is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS:The database searches yielded a total of 1113 publications, of which 67 were considered potentially relevant based on the predetermined eligibility criteria, and retrieved in full text. Seventeen unique determinant frameworks were identified and included. Most were developed based on the literature and/or the developers' implementation experiences. Six of the frameworks explicitly referred to "context", but only four frameworks provided a specific definition of the concept. Instead, context was defined indirectly by description of various categories and sub-categories that together made up the context. Twelve context dimensions were identified, pertaining to different aggregation levels. The most widely addressed context dimensions were organizational support, financial resources, social relations and support, and leadership. CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest variation with regard to how the frameworks were developed and considerable inconsistency in terms used for contextual determinants, how context is conceptualized, and which contextual determinants are accounted for in frameworks used in implementation science. Common context dimensions were identified, which can facilitate research that incorporates a theory of context, i.e. assumptions about how different dimensions may influence each other and affect implementation outcomes. A thoughtful application of the concept and a more consistent terminology would enhance transparency, simplify communication among researchers, and facilitate comparison across studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a 'methodological framework', nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. For the purposes of this study we have defined a methodological framework as a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. This study's aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia. METHODS:A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O'Malley's methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS:We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was 'Based on existing methods and guidelines' (66.7%), followed by 'Refined and validated' (33.3%), 'Experience and expertise' (30.0%), 'Literature review' (26.7%), 'Data synthesis and amalgamation' (23.3%), 'Data extraction' (10.0%), 'Iteratively developed' (6.7%) and 'Lab work results' (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; diverse terms for methodological framework were used across and, interchangeably, within studies. CONCLUSIONS:Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.