Dataset Information

Defining and assessing context in healthcare implementation studies: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The implementation of evidence-based healthcare interventions is challenging, with a 17-year gap identified between the generation of evidence and its implementation in routine practice. Although contextual factors such as culture and leadership are strong influences for successful implementation, context remains poorly understood, with a lack of consensus regarding how it should be defined and captured within research. This study addresses this issue by providing insight into how context is defined and assessed within healthcare implementation science literature and develops a definition to enable effective measurement of context. METHODS:Medline, PsychInfo, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched. Articles were included if studies were empirical and evaluated context during the implementation of a healthcare initiative. These English language articles were published in the previous 10?years and included a definition and assessment of context. Results were synthesised using a narrative approach. RESULTS:Three thousand and twenty-one search records were obtained of which 64 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Studies used a variety of definitions in terms of the level of detail and explanation provided. Some listed contextual factors (n?=?19) while others documented sub-elements of a framework that included context (n?=?19). The remaining studies provide a rich definition of general context (n?=?11) or aspects of context (n?=?15). The Alberta Context Tool was the most frequently used quantitative measure (n?=?4), while qualitative papers used a range of frameworks to evaluate context. Mixed methods studies used diverse approaches; some used frameworks to inform the methods chosen while others used quantitative measures to inform qualitative data collection. Most studies (n?=?50) applied the chosen measure to all aspects of study design with a majority analysing context at an individual level (n?=?29). CONCLUSIONS:This review highlighted inconsistencies in defining and measuring context which emphasised the need to develop an operational definition. By providing this consensus, improvements in implementation processes may result, as a common understanding will help researchers to appropriately account for context in research.

SUBMITTER: Rogers L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7322847 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining and assessing context in healthcare implementation studies: a systematic review.

Rogers L L De Brún A A McAuliffe E E

BMC health services research 20200629 1

<h4>Background</h4>The implementation of evidence-based healthcare interventions is challenging, with a 17-year gap identified between the generation of evidence and its implementation in routine practice. Although contextual factors such as culture and leadership are strong influences for successful implementation, context remains poorly understood, with a lack of consensus regarding how it should be defined and captured within research. This study addresses this issue by providing insight into ...[more]

PMID: 32600396

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChampions play a critical role in implementing technology within healthcare services. While prior studies have explored the presence and characteristics of champions, this review delves into the experiences of healthcare personnel holding champion roles, as well as the experiences of healthcare personnel interacting with them. By synthesizing existing knowledge, this review aims to inform decisions regarding the inclusion of champions as a strategy in technology implementation and guide healthcare personnel in these roles.MethodsA systematic mixed studies review, covering qualitative, quantitative, or mixed designs, was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023. The search spanned Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus, focusing on studies published from 2012 onwards. The review centered on health personnel serving as champions in technology implementation within healthcare services. Quality assessments utilized the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).ResultsFrom 1629 screened studies, 23 were included. The champion role was often examined within the broader context of technology implementation. Limited studies explicitly explored experiences related to the champion role from both champions' and health personnel's perspectives. Champions emerged as promoters of technology, supporting its adoption. Success factors included anchoring and selection processes, champions' expertise, and effective role performance.DiscussionThe specific tasks and responsibilities assigned to champions differed across reviewed studies, highlighting that the role of champion is a broad one, dependent on the technology being implemented and the site implementing it. Findings indicated a correlation between champion experiences and organizational characteristics. The role's firm anchoring within the organization is crucial. Limited evidence suggests that volunteering, hiring newly graduated health personnel, and having multiple champions can facilitate technology implementation. Existing studies predominantly focused on client health records and hospitals, emphasizing the need for broader research across healthcare services.ConclusionsWith a clear mandate, dedicated time, and proper training, health personnel in champion roles can significantly contribute professional, technological, and personal competencies to facilitate technology adoption within healthcare services. The review finds that the concept of champions is a broad one and finds varied definitions of the champion role concept. This underscores the importance of describing organizational characteristics, and highlights areas for future research to enhance technology implementation strategies in different healthcare settings with support of a champion.

Project description:BackgroundResearchers, healthcare planners, and policymakers convey a sense of urgency in using eMental healthcare technologies to improve pediatric mental healthcare availability and access. Yet, different stakeholders may focus on different aspects of implementation. We conducted a systematic review to identify implementation foci in research studies and government/organizational documents for eMental healthcare technologies for pediatric mental healthcare.MethodsA search of eleven electronic databases and grey literature was conducted. We included research studies and documents from organization and government websites if the focus included eMental healthcare technology for children/adolescents (0-18 years), and implementation was studied and reported (research studies) or goals/recommendations regarding implementation were made (documents). We assessed study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and document quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II. Implementation information was grouped according to Proctor and colleagues' implementation outcomes-acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability-and grouped separately for studies and documents.ResultsTwenty research studies and nine government/organizational documents met eligibility criteria. These articles represented implementation of eMental healthcare technologies in the USA (14 studies), United Kingdom (2 documents, 3 studies), Canada (2 documents, 1 study), Australia (4 documents, 1 study), New Zealand (1 study), and the Netherlands (1 document). The quality of research studies was excellent (n?=?11), good (n?=?6), and poor (n?=?1). These eMental health studies focused on the acceptability (70%, n?=?14) and appropriateness (50%, n?=?10) of eMental healthcare technologies to users and mental healthcare professionals. The quality of government and organizational documents was high (n?=?2), medium (n?=?6), and low (n?=?1). These documents focused on cost (100%, n?=?9), penetration (89%, n?=?8), feasibility (78%, n?=?7), and sustainability (67%, n?=?6) of implementing eMental healthcare technology.ConclusionTo date, research studies have largely focused on acceptability and appropriateness, while government/organizational documents state goals and recommendations regarding costs, feasibility, and sustainability of eMental healthcare technologies. These differences suggest that the research evidence available for pediatric eMental healthcare technologies does not reflect the focus of governments and organizations. Partnerships between researchers, healthcare planners, and policymakers may help to align implementation research with policy development, decision-making, and funding foci.

Project description:BackgroundAnxiety disorders and depression are frequent conditions in childhood and adolescence. eMental healthcare technologies may improve access to services, but their uptake within health systems is limited.ObjectiveThe objective of this review was to examine and describe how the implementation of eMental healthcare technologies for anxiety disorders and depression in children and adolescents has been studied.MethodsWe conducted a search of 5 electronic databases and gray literature. Eligible studies were those that assessed an eMental healthcare technology for treating or preventing anxiety or depression, included children or adolescents (<18 years), or their parents or healthcare providers and reported findings on technology implementation. The methodological quality of studies was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Outcomes of interest were based on 8 implementation outcomes: acceptability (satisfaction with a technology), adoption (technology uptake and utilization), appropriateness ("fitness for purpose"), cost (financial impact of technology implementation), feasibility (extent to which a technology was successfully used), fidelity (implementation as intended), penetration ("spread" or "reach" of the technology), and sustainability (maintenance or integration of a technology within a healthcare service). For extracted implementation outcome data, we coded favorable ratings on measurement scales as "positive results" and unfavorable ratings on measurement scales as "negative results." Those studies that reported both positive and negative findings were coded as having "mixed results."ResultsA total of 46 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were rated as very good to excellent in methodological quality. These studies investigated eMental healthcare technologies for anxiety (n=23), depression (n=18), or both anxiety and depression (n=5). Studies of technologies for anxiety evaluated the following: (1) acceptability (78%) reported high levels of satisfaction, (2) adoption (43%) commonly reported positive results, and (3) feasibility (43%) reported mixed results. Studies of technologies for depression evaluated the following: (1) appropriateness (56%) reported moderate helpfulness and (2) acceptability (50%) described a mix of both positive and negative findings. Studies of technologies designed to aid anxiety and depression commonly reported mixed experiences with acceptability and adoption and positive findings for appropriateness of the technologies for treatment. Across all studies, cost, fidelity, and penetration and sustainability were the least measured implementation outcomes.ConclusionsAcceptability of eMental healthcare technology is high among users and is the most commonly investigated implementation outcome. Perceptions of the appropriateness and adoption of eMental healthcare technology were varied. Implementation research that identifies, evaluates, and reports on costs, sustainability, and fidelity to clinical guidelines is crucial for making high-quality eMental healthcare available to children and adolescents.

Project description:Introduction: Intensive monitoring (IM) is one of the methods of post-marketing active surveillance based upon event monitoring, which has received interest in the current medicines regulatory landscape. For a specific period of time, IM involves primary data collection and is actively focused on gathering longitudinal information, mainly safety, since the first day of drug use. Objectives: To describe IM systems and studies' data published over 11-years period (2006-2016). Specifically, we reviewed study population/event surveillance, methodological approaches, limitations, and its applications in the real-world evidence generation data. Methods: We completed a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies published from 2006 to 2016, that used IM methodology. We extracted data using a standardized form and results were analyzed descriptively. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed using the modified Downs and Black checklist. Results: From 1,400 screened citations, we identified 86 papers, corresponding to 69 different studies. Seventy percent of reviewed studies corresponded to established IM systems, of which, more than half were prescription event monitoring (PEM) and modified-PEM. Among non-established IM systems, vaccines were the most common studied drugs (n = 14). The median cohort size ranged from 488 (hospitals) to 10,479 (PEM) patients. Patients and caregivers were the event data source in 39.1% of studies. The mean overall quality score was similar between established and non-established IM. Conclusions: Over the study period, IM studies were implemented in 26 countries with different maturity levels of post-marketing surveillance systems. We identified two major limitations: only 20% of studies were conducted at hospital-level, which is a matter of concern, insofar as healthcare systems are facing a lack of access to new medicines at ambulatory care level. Additionally, IM access to data of drug exposure cohorts, either at identification or at follow-up stages, could somehow constitute a barrier, given the complexity of managerial, linkable, and privacy data issues.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last decade, various pay-for-performance (P4P) programs have been implemented to improve quality in health systems, including the VHA. P4P programs are complex, and their effects may vary by design, context, and other implementation processes. We conducted a systematic review and key informant (KI) interviews to better understand the implementation factors that modify the effectiveness of P4P.MethodsWe searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through April 2014, and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P implementation. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed P4P researchers to gain further insight.ResultsAmong 1363 titles and abstracts, we selected 509 for full-text review, and included 41 primary studies. Of these 41 studies, 33 examined P4P programs in ambulatory settings, 7 targeted hospitals, and 1 study applied to nursing homes. Related to implementation, 13 studies examined program design, 8 examined implementation processes, 6 the outer setting, 18 the inner setting, and 5 provider characteristics. Results suggest the importance of considering underlying payment models and using statistically stringent methods of composite measure development, and ensuring that high-quality care will be maintained after incentive removal. We found no conclusive evidence that provider or practice characteristics relate to P4P effectiveness. Interviews with 14 KIs supported limited evidence that effective P4P program measures should be aligned with organizational goals, that incentive structures should be carefully considered, and that factors such as a strong infrastructure and public reporting may have a large influence.DiscussionThere is limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions related to P4P implementation. Findings from studies and KI interviews suggest that P4P programs should undergo regular evaluation and should target areas of poor performance. Additionally, measures and incentives should align with organizational priorities, and programs should allow for changes over time in response to data and provider input.

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

Defining and assessing context in healthcare implementation studies: a systematic review.

Publications

Defining and assessing context in healthcare implementation studies: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets