Dataset Information

A narrative review of economic constructs in commonly used implementation and scale-up theories, frameworks and models.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Translating research evidence into practice is challenging and, to date, there are relatively few public health interventions that have been effectively and cost-effectively implemented and delivered at scale. Theories, models and frameworks (herein termed 'frameworks') have been used in implementation science to describe, guide and explain implementation and scale-up. While economic constructs have been reported as both barriers and facilitators to effective implementation and scale-up of public health interventions, there is currently no published review of how economic constructs are considered within commonly used implementation and scale-up frameworks. This paper aimed to narratively review the economic constructs incorporated in commonly used implementation and scale-up frameworks. METHODS:Frameworks for inclusion in the narrative review were identified from the literature and thematic content analysis was undertaken using a recursive deductive approach. Emergent key themes and sub-themes were identified and results were summarised narratively within each theme. RESULTS:Twenty-six framework publications were included in our analysis, with wide variation between frameworks in the scope and level of detail of the economic constructs included. Four key themes emerged from the data - 'resources', 'benefit', 'cost' and 'funding'. Only five frameworks incorporated all four identified key themes. Overarching lenses from which to consider key themes included 'stakeholder perspectives', 'stage in the research translation process' and 'context'. 'Resources' were most frequently considered in relation to the sub-themes of 'types of resources' (e.g. labour, time or infrastructure) and 'availability' of resources, and the opportunity for 'economies of scale'. The 'relative advantage of interventions' emerged as an interconnecting sub-theme between 'cost' and 'benefit'. 'Funding' was most often considered in relation to 'funding sources', 'availability', 'sustainability' or 'contextual impact'. The concept of 'opportunity cost' was considered in relatively few frameworks, despite being fundamental to economic theory. CONCLUSIONS:Implementation and scale-up frameworks provide a conceptual map to inform the effective and cost-effective implementation of public health interventions delivered at scale. Despite evidence of an emerging focus on the economic considerations of implementation and scale-up within some commonly used frameworks, our findings suggest that there is significant scope for further exploration of the economic constructs related to implementation and scale-up.

SUBMITTER: Vicki B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7528255 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A narrative review of economic constructs in commonly used implementation and scale-up theories, frameworks and models.

Vicki Brown B Huong Tran T Miranda Blake B Rachel Laws L Marj Moodie M

Health research policy and systems 20201001 1

<h4>Background</h4>Translating research evidence into practice is challenging and, to date, there are relatively few public health interventions that have been effectively and cost-effectively implemented and delivered at scale. Theories, models and frameworks (herein termed 'frameworks') have been used in implementation science to describe, guide and explain implementation and scale-up. While economic constructs have been reported as both barriers and facilitators to effective implementation an ...[more]

PMID: 32998752

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundModels, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems of power and oppression can shape implementation. There is value in enhancing how MTFs in implementation research and practice account for these intersecting factors. Given the large number of MTFs, we sought to identify exemplar MTFs that represent key implementation phases within which to embed an intersectional perspective.MethodsWe used a five-step process to prioritize MTFs for enhancement with an intersectional lens. We mapped 160 MTFs to three previously prioritized phases of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. Next, 17 implementation researchers/practitioners, MTF experts, and intersectionality experts agreed on criteria for prioritizing MTFs within each KTA phase. The experts used a modified Delphi process to agree on an exemplar MTF for each of the three prioritized KTA framework phases. Finally, we reached consensus on the final MTFs and contacted the original MTF developers to confirm MTF versions and explore additional insights.ResultsWe agreed on three criteria when prioritizing MTFs: acceptability (mean = 3.20, SD = 0.75), applicability (mean = 3.82, SD = 0.72), and usability (median = 4.00, mean = 3.89, SD = 0.31) of the MTF. The top-rated MTFs were the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care for the 'Identify the problem' phase (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.31), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for the 'Assess barriers/facilitators to knowledge use' phase (mean = 5.79, SD = 1.12), and the Behaviour Change Wheel for the 'Select, tailor, implement interventions' phase (mean = 6.36, SD = 1.08).ConclusionsOur interdisciplinary team engaged in a rigorous process to reach consensus on MTFs reflecting specific phases of the implementation process and prioritized each to serve as an exemplar in which to embed intersectional approaches. The resulting MTFs correspond with specific phases of the KTA framework, which itself may be useful for those seeking particular MTFs for particular KTA phases. This approach also provides a template for how other implementation MTFs could be similarly considered in the future.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework Registration: osf.io/qgh64.

Project description:BackgroundThe uptake, adoption and integration of new medicines and treatment regimens within healthcare delivery can take a decade or more. Increasingly, implementation science (IS) research is being used to bridge this gap between the availability of new therapeutic evidence and its actual application in clinical practice. Little is known, however, about the quality of IS research in this area, including the degree to which theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are being used. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the use of TMFs in implementation research involving medicinal products.MethodsA search was conducted for English language abstracts and manuscripts describing the application of TMFs in IS studies for medicinal products. Eligible publications were those published between 1 January 1974 and 12 December 2022. All records were screened at the title and abstract stage; included full-text papers were abstracted using data extraction tables designed for the study. Study quality was appraised using the Implementation Research Development Tool.ResultsThe initial scoping search identified 2697 publications, of which 9 were ultimately eligible for inclusion in the review. Most studies were published after 2020 and varied in their objectives, design and therapeutic area. Most studies had sample sizes of fewer than 50 participants, and all focused on the post-marketing phase of drug development. The TMF most frequently used was the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Although most studies applied all TMF domains, TMF use was limited to instrument development and/or qualitative analysis. Quality appraisals indicated the need for engaging patients and other stakeholders in the implementation research, reporting on the cost of implementation strategies, and evaluating the unintended consequences of implementation efforts.ConclusionsWe found that few IS studies involving medicinal products reported using TMFs. Those that did encompassed a wide variety of therapeutic indications and medicinal products; all were in the post-marketing phase and involved limited application of the TMFs. Researchers should consider conducting IS in earlier phases of drug development and integrating the TMFs throughout the research process. More consistent and in-depth use of TMFs may help advance research in this area.

Project description:There is limited research on capacity building interventions that include theoretical foundations. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify underlying theories, models and frameworks used to support capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice. The aim is to inform and improve capacity building practices and services offered by public health organizations.Four search strategies were used: 1) electronic database searching; 2) reference lists of included papers; 3) key informant consultation; and 4) grey literature searching. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined with included papers focusing on capacity building, learning plans, professional development plans in combination with tools, resources, processes, procedures, steps, model, framework, guideline, described in a public health or healthcare setting, or non-government, government, or community organizations as they relate to healthcare, and explicitly or implicitly mention a theory, model and/or framework that grounds the type of capacity building approach developed. Quality assessment were performed on all included articles. Data analysis included a process for synthesizing, analyzing and presenting descriptive summaries, categorizing theoretical foundations according to which theory, model and/or framework was used and whether or not the theory, model or framework was implied or explicitly identified.Nineteen articles were included in this review. A total of 28 theories, models and frameworks were identified. Of this number, two theories (Diffusion of Innovations and Transformational Learning), two models (Ecological and Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation) and one framework (Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning) were identified as the most frequently cited.This review identifies specific theories, models and frameworks to support capacity building interventions relevant to public health organizations. It provides public health practitioners with a menu of potentially usable theories, models and frameworks to support capacity building efforts. The findings also support the need for the use of theories, models or frameworks to be intentional, explicitly identified, referenced and for it to be clearly outlined how they were applied to the capacity building intervention.

Project description:BackgroundEvaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies.MethodsA scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis.ResultsOf the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to "train and educate stakeholders" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to "develop stakeholder interrelationships" (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.ConclusionsThis scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Project description:BackgroundThe South African public health sector embarked on a National Telemedicine System implementation program in 1999 and although unsuccessful, the Province of KwaZulu-Natal subsequently implemented teledermatology in 2003, with two currently active services (synchronous and asynchronous). Although sustained these have not been scaled-up to meet the needs of all hospitals in the Province. A recent teledermatology scale-up design requirements elicitation process within KwaZulu-Natal confirmed the need for a framework, and identified requirements through key stakeholders, programme observations, the literature, and experts. This study aimed to identify and characterise existing teledermatology or related eHealth scale-up frameworks, determine whether any met the previously elicited scale-up framework requirements, and were suitable for use in the KwaZulu-Natal public health sector.MethodsA structured literature search was performed of electronic databases (Scopus, Science Direct, IEEE, PubMed, and Google Scholar) seeking proposed or developed teledermatology or related scale-up frameworks. Global public health publications were also hand-searched. The teledermatology or telemedicine, telehealth or eHealth related scale-up frameworks identified were critiqued against the previously elicited teledermatology scale-up framework requirements to determine their suitability for use.ResultsNo specific teledermatology scale-up framework was found. Seven related scale-up frameworks were identified, although none met all the previously identified teledermatology scale-up framework requirements. The identified frameworks were designed for specific scale-up phases and lacked a more holistic and comprehensive approach.ConclusionsThere is an evidenced-based need for the development of a health sector aligned, holistic framework that meets the identified teledermatology scale-up framework requirements. The findings of this paper will inform development of such a framework.

Project description:BackgroundA proliferation of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) have been developed in the implementation science field to facilitate the implementation process. The basic features of these TMFs have been identified by several reviews. However, systematic appraisals on the quality of these TMFs are inadequate. To fill this gap, this study aimed to assess the usability, applicability, and testability of the current TMFs in a structured way.MethodsA scoping review method was employed. Electronic databases were searched to locate English and Chinese articles published between January 2000 and April 2022. Search terms were specific to implementation science. Additionally, hand searches were administered to identify articles from related reviews. Purpose and characteristics such as the type of TMF, analytical level, and observation unit were extracted. Structured appraisal criteria were adapted from Birken et al.'s Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST) to conduct an in-depth analysis of the TMFs' usability, applicability, and testability.ResultsA total of 143 TMFs were included in this analysis. Among them, the most common purpose was to identify barriers and facilitators. Most TMFs applied the descriptive method to summarize the included constructs or the prescriptive method to propose courses of implementation actions. TMFs were mainly mid-range theories built on existing conceptual frameworks or demonstrated grand theories. The usability of the TMFs needs to be improved in terms of the provision of conceptually matched strategies to barriers and facilitators and instructions on the TMFs usage. Regarding the applicability, little attention was paid to the constructs of macro-level context, stages of scale-up and sustainability, and implementation outcomes like feasibility, cost, and penetration. Also, fewer TMFs could propose recommended research and measurement methods to apply the TMFs. Lastly, explicit hypotheses or propositions were lacking in most of the TMFs, and empirical evidence was lacking to support the claimed mechanisms between framework elements in testability.ConclusionsCommon limitations were found in the usability, application, and testability of the current TMFs. The findings of this review could provide insights for developers of TMFs for future theoretical advancements.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to inform a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool. METHODS:We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS:Twenty-four individuals participated in the study. Categories of barriers/facilitators, to inform tool development, included characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied. CONCLUSIONS:An easy to use decision support tool that addresses key barriers to selecting an implementation theory, model or framework in practice may be beneficial to individuals who facilitate implementation practice activities. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool development and design through a user-centered approach.

Dataset Information

A narrative review of economic constructs in commonly used implementation and scale-up theories, frameworks and models.

Publications

A narrative review of economic constructs in commonly used implementation and scale-up theories, frameworks and models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets