Dataset Information

Identifying relevant concepts and factors for the sustainability of evidence-based practices within acute care contexts: a systematic review and theory analysis of selected sustainability frameworks.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is growing recognition among healthcare professionals that the sustainability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within different settings is variable and suboptimal. Understanding why a particular EBP might be sustained in one setting and not another remains unclear. Recent reviews illustrate the need to identify and analyze existing frameworks/models/theories (F/M/Ts) that focus solely on the sustainability of EBPs in specific healthcare settings, such as acute care, to illuminate key determinants and facilitate appropriate selection to guide practice and research.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to extract sustainability frameworks. This involved using two available syntheses of the literature and a systematic search of four databases from January 2015 to July 2018: CINHAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ProQuest. We included studies published in English, and if they included sustainability F/M/Ts recommended for use in acute care or an unspecified healthcare organization/setting. F/M/Ts explicitly recommended for use in public health and or community settings were excluded. We then conducted a comparative analysis of F/M/Ts using a modified theory analysis approach, to understand the theoretical underpinnings of each F/M/T, their determinants and concepts hypothesized to influence the sustained use of EBPs within an acute care context.

Results

Of 2967 identified citations from the 2 available syntheses and the systematic review, 8 F/M/Ts met the inclusion criteria. We identified 37 core factors, of which 16 were recorded as common factors (occurring within 4 or more of the 8 included F/M/Ts). All factors grouped into 7 main themes: innovation, adopters, leadership and management, inner context, inner processes, outer context, and outcomes.

Conclusions

This systematic review is the first to include a comprehensive analysis of healthcare sustainability F/M/Ts for the sustained use of EBPs in acute care settings. Findings reveal insights into sustainability as a "process or ongoing stage of use" following initial implementation, suggesting this construct should be added to the definition of sustainability. Results provide a resource of available F/M/Ts and hypothesized factors to consider for acute care team members who are planning or currently implementing EBPs with the goal of improving patient outcomes. It also provides a basis for future research on sustainability in acute care.

SUBMITTER: Nadalin Penno L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6923954 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Marine policy is increasingly calling for maintaining or restoring healthy oceans while human activities continue to intensify. Thus, successful prioritization and management of competing objectives requires a comprehensive assessment of the current state of the ocean. Unfortunately, assessment frameworks to define and quantify current ocean state are often site-specific, limited to a few ocean components, and difficult to reproduce in different geographies or even through time, limiting spatial or temporal comparisons as well as the potential for shared learning. Ideally, frameworks should be tailorable to accommodate use in disparate locations and contexts, removing the need to develop frameworks de novo and allowing efforts to focus on the assessments themselves to advise action. Here, we present some of our experiences using the Ocean Health Index (OHI) framework, a tailorable and repeatable approach that measures health of coupled human-ocean ecosystems in different contexts by accommodating differences in local environmental characteristics, cultural priorities, and information availability and quality. Since its development in 2012, eleven assessments using the OHI framework have been completed at global, national, and regional scales, four of which have been led by independent academic or government groups. We have found the following to be best practices for conducting assessments: Incorporate key characteristics and priorities into the assessment framework design before gathering information; Strategically define spatial boundaries to balance information availability and decision-making scales; Maintain the key characteristics and priorities of the assessment framework regardless of information limitations; and Document and share the assessment process, methods, and tools. These best practices are relevant to most ecosystem assessment processes, but also provide tangible guidance for assessments using the OHI framework. These recommendations also promote transparency around which decisions were made and why, reproducibility through access to detailed methods and computational code, repeatability via the ability to modify methods and computational code, and ease of communication to wide audiences, all of which are critical for any robust assessment process.

Project description:BackgroundThe planning of training is a popular yet controversial topic among coaches and sports scientists. Periodisation is often presented in the literature as the most efficacious approach to planning training. While historically surveys of coaches appeared to support this a key failing was that no unified definition of periodisation exists. Recent surveys offering a periodisation definition and an alternative planning methodology found many choosing the alternative therefore questioning periodisation's wide acceptance. The current survey looked to explore how coaches perceived specific concepts, drawn from the literature, that relate to the planning of training.Methods106 coaches [age range: 18-65+ years, 31% 15+ years coaching, 58% individual-events/sports and 32% international level] from across the world completed a novel cross-sectional online survey on the planning of training and the training process. Topics included use of periodisation, division of time into discrete periods, assignment of goals and training to pre-determined periods and the adaptability of pre-established plans.ResultsThe majority described their planning approach as training periodisation (71%). Similarly, there was strong agreement with the necessity to determining a goal for the season (85%) and divide the season into distinct manageable periods of time (73%). When examining whether physical adaptations are achievable within specific and fixed timeframes only a minority (33%) agreed, a similar result was found for training physical capacities in a sequential order (37%). Finally, there was limited support for training targets remaining fixed over a training period (10%).ConclusionsAs a tool for the planning of athlete's training, periodisation is often presented as the best and most popular approach. Recent research however has highlighted possible discrepancies in its usage among practitioners. The results of this survey echo this and question the acceptance of periodisation concepts even among periodisation users. In part this may be due to key tenets of periodisation no longer being supported by research or practice. A lingering question then is whether the beliefs of coaches, developed through experience and supported by research, will continue to be marginalized. If sports scientists wish to aid coaches then they need to be engaged in future research initiatives as co-collaborators.

Project description:BackgroundThis study compares classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to determine reliable change. Reliable change followed by anchoring to the change in categorically distinct responses on a criterion measure is a useful method to detect meaningful change on a target measure.MethodsAdult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers. Baseline and follow-up assessments at 6 weeks were administered. We investigated short forms derived from PROMIS® item banks on anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, and sleep disturbance. We detected reliable change using reliable change index (RCI). We derived the T-scores corresponding to the RCI calculated under IRT and CTT frameworks using PROMIS® short forms. For changes that were reliable, meaningful change was identified using patient-reported change in PRO-CTCAE by at least one level. For both CTT and IRT approaches, we applied one-sided tests to detect reliable improvement or worsening using RCI. We compared the percentages of patients with reliable change and reliable/meaningful change.ResultsThe amount of change in T score corresponding to RCICTT of 1.65 ranged from 5.1 to 9.2 depending on domains. The amount of change corresponding to RCIIRT of 1.65 varied across the score range, and the minimum change ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 depending on domains. Across domains, the RCICTT and RCIIRT classified 80% to 98% of the patients consistently. When there was disagreement, the RCIIRT tended to identify more patients as having reliably changed compared to RCICTT if scores at both timepoints were in the range of 43 to 78 in anxiety, 45 to 70 in depression, 38 to 80 in fatigue, 35 to 78 in sleep disturbance, and 48 to 74 in pain interference, due to smaller standard errors in these ranges using the IRT method. The CTT method found more changes compared to IRT for the pain intensity domain that was shorter in length. Using RCICTT, 22% to 66% had reliable change in either direction depending on domains, and among these patients, 62% to 83% had meaningful change. Using RCIIRT, 37% to 68% had reliable change in either direction, and among these patients, 62% to 81% had meaningful change.ConclusionApplying the two-step criteria demonstrated in this study, we determined how much change is needed to declare reliable change at different levels of baseline scores. We offer reference values for percentage of patients who meaningfully change for investigators using the PROMIS instruments in oncology.

Project description:The need to encourage individuals as active change agents for sustainability transitions has led researchers across disciplines to conceptualize over 70 constructs to assess relevant dispositions to environmental protection and green consumption behaviors. The generated knowledge is, however, fragmented by an unconsolidated set of constructs developed within parallel literature streams. We, hence, use an integrative review method to capture conceptual and operational similarities and distinctiveness of constructs across disciplines in the literature, attempting to unify the knowledge base. Thereby, we identify 34 conceptually distinct constructs (along with 38 synonyms and 76 scales) relevant for the thematic synthesis on individual-level constructs framing contributions to environmental measures and issues. We followingly propose a taxonomy, systemizing constructs based on their concept type(s) (e.g., value, attitude, behavior) and contextual scope(s) of the environmental challenge (e.g., product choice, household practice) addressed. We capture these dimensions in critically assessing relevant and salient conceptual and operational features. We thus create a consolidated picture of extant constructs capturing individual-level environmental sustainability by which we intend a three-fold contribution to the interdisciplinary field. First, the taxonomy and guiding framework for the choice of constructs should assist substantive researchers in identifying appropriate constructs of interest. Second, the systematic integration of (dis)similar concepts available in parallel literature streams should assist future endeavors aiming at integrating substantive findings with regard to antecedents, consequences, and other relevant variables. Finally, the taxonomy revealed that conceptualizations mainly scatter around specific combinations of types and scopes while others remain unaddressed. Based on our critical assessment of the relevant features and resulting taxonomy, we identify avenues for future research dedicated to (i) enhancing conceptual rigor and measurement quality in the field and (ii) introducing concepts addressing missing but potentially valuable combinations of types and scopes (e.g., antecedents capturing green consumption contexts). We conclude that researchers engaging in the proposed avenues with conceptual, methodological, or empirical contributions should consider four critical aspects to advance knowledge accumulation and prevent fragmentation in the interdisciplinary field. We thereby hope to pave the way for a collective, interdisciplinary knowledge base of concepts used to describe and assess individual's pro-environmental dispositions and practices of green consumption.