Dataset Information

Consolidated Framework for Collaboration Research derived from a systematic review of theories, models, frameworks and principles for cross-sector collaboration.

ABSTRACT: Cross-sector collaboration is needed to address root causes of persistent public health challenges. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies describing theories, models, frameworks and principles for cross-sector collaboration and synthesized collaboration constructs into the Consolidated Framework for Collaboration Research (CFCR). Ninety-five articles were included in the review. Constructs were abstracted from articles and grouped into seven domains within the framework: community context; group composition; structure and internal processes; group dynamics; social capital; activities that influence or take place within the collaboration; activities that influence or take place within the broader community; and activities that influence or take place both in the collaboration and in the community. Community engagement strategies employed by collaborations are discussed, as well as recommendations for using systems science methods for testing specific mechanisms of how constructs identified in the review influence one another. Researchers, funders, and collaboration members can use the consolidated framework to articulate components of collaboration and test mechanisms explaining how collaborations function. By working from a consolidated framework of collaboration terms and using systems science methods, researchers can advance evidence for the efficacy of cross-sector collaborations.

SUBMITTER: Calancie L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7781480 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Consolidated Framework for Collaboration Research derived from a systematic review of theories, models, frameworks and principles for cross-sector collaboration.

Calancie Larissa L Frerichs Leah L Davis Melinda M MM Sullivan Eliana E White Ann Marie AM Cilenti Dorothy D Corbie-Smith Giselle G Hassmiller Lich Kristen K

PloS one 20210104 1

Cross-sector collaboration is needed to address root causes of persistent public health challenges. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies describing theories, models, frameworks and principles for cross-sector collaboration and synthesized collaboration constructs into the Consolidated Framework for Collaboration Research (CFCR). Ninety-five articles were included in the review. Constructs were abstracted from articles and grouped into seven domains within the framework ...[more]

PMID: 33395449

Similar Datasets

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.

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: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: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:BackgroundAccurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature.ObjectiveTo systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics.MethodsFour electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction-validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD).ResultsApplication of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%).ConclusionThis study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field. Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932 .

Project description:BACKGROUND:Electronic health (eHealth) is a rapidly evolving field informed by multiple scientific disciplines. Because of this, the use of different terms and concepts to explain the same phenomena and lack of standardization in reporting interventions often leaves a gap that hinders knowledge accumulation. Interventions focused on self-management support of cardiovascular diseases through the use of remote monitoring technologies are a cross-disciplinary area potentially affected by this gap. A review of the underlying frameworks, models, and theories that have informed projects at this crossroad could advance future research and development efforts. OBJECTIVE:This research aimed to identify and compare underlying approaches that have informed interventions focused on self-management support of cardiovascular diseases through the use of remote monitoring technologies. The objective was to achieve an understanding of the distinct approaches by highlighting common or conflicting principles, guidelines, and methods. METHODS:The metaethnography approach was used to review and synthesize researchers' reports on how they applied frameworks, models, and theories in their projects. Literature was systematically searched in 7 databases: Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, and Cochrane Library. Included studies were thoroughly read and coded to extract data for the synthesis. Studies were mainly related by the key ingredients of the underlying approaches they applied. The key ingredients were finally translated across studies and synthesized into thematic clusters. RESULTS:Of 1224 initial results, 17 articles were included. The articles described research and development of 10 different projects. Frameworks, models, and theories (n=43) applied by the projects were identified. Key ingredients (n=293) of the included articles were mapped to the following themes of eHealth development: (1) it is a participatory process; (2) it creates new infrastructures for improving health care, health, and well-being; (3) it is intertwined with implementation; (4) it integrates theory, evidence, and participatory approaches for persuasive design; (5) it requires continuous evaluation cycles; (6) it targets behavior change; (7) it targets technology adoption; and (8) it targets health-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this review support and exemplify the numerous possibilities in the use of frameworks, models, and theories to guide research and development of eHealth. Participatory, user-centered design, and integration with empirical evidence and theoretical modeling were widely identified principles in the literature. On the contrary, less attention has been given to the integration of implementation in the development process and supporting novel eHealth-based health care infrastructures. To better integrate theory and evidence, holistic approaches can combine patient-centered studies with consolidated knowledge from expert-based approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018104397; https://tinyurl.com/y8ajyajt. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):RR2-10.2196/13334.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2009, Damschroder et al. developed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which provides a comprehensive listing of constructs thought to influence implementation. This systematic review assesses the extent to which the CFIR's use in implementation research fulfills goals set forth by Damschroder et al. in terms of breadth of use, depth of application, and contribution to implementation research.MethodsWe searched Scopus and Web of Science for publications that cited the original CFIR publication by Damschroder et al. (Implement Sci 4:50, 2009) and downloaded each unique result for review. After applying exclusion criteria, the final articles were empirical studies published in peer-review journals that used the CFIR in a meaningful way (i.e., used the CFIR to guide data collection, measurement, coding, analysis, and/or reporting). A framework analysis approach was used to guide abstraction and synthesis of the included articles.ResultsTwenty-six of 429 unique articles (6 %) met inclusion criteria. We found great breadth in CFIR application; the CFIR was applied across a wide variety of study objectives, settings, and units of analysis. There was also variation in the method of included studies (mixed methods (n = 13); qualitative (n = 10); quantitative (n = 3)). Depth of CFIR application revealed some areas for improvement. Few studies (n = 3) reported justification for selection of CFIR constructs used; the majority of studies (n = 14) used the CFIR to guide data analysis only; and few studies investigated any outcomes (n = 11). Finally, reflections on the contribution of the CFIR to implementation research were scarce.ConclusionsOur results indicate that the CFIR has been used across a wide range of studies, though more in-depth use of the CFIR may help advance implementation science. To harness its potential, researchers should consider how to most meaningfully use the CFIR. Specific recommendations for applying the CFIR include explicitly justifying selection of CFIR constructs; integrating the CFIR throughout the research process (in study design, data collection, and analysis); and appropriately using the CFIR given the phase of implementation of the research (e.g., if the research is post-implementation, using the CFIR to link determinants of implementation to outcomes).

Project description:BackgroundQualitative approaches, alone or in mixed methods, are prominent within implementation science. However, traditional qualitative approaches are resource intensive, which has led to the development of rapid qualitative approaches. Published rapid approaches are often inductive in nature and rely on transcripts of interviews. We describe a deductive rapid analysis approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) that uses notes and audio recordings. This paper compares our rapid versus traditional deductive CFIR approach.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted for two cohorts of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE). The CFIR guided data collection and analysis. In cohort A, we used our traditional CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where two analysts completed independent in-depth manual coding of interview transcripts using qualitative software. In cohort B, we used our new rapid CFIR-based deductive analysis approach (directed content analysis), where the primary analyst wrote detailed notes during interviews and immediately "coded" notes into a MS Excel CFIR construct by facility matrix; a secondary analyst then listened to audio recordings and edited the matrix. We tracked time for our traditional and rapid deductive CFIR approaches using a spreadsheet and captured transcription costs from invoices. We retrospectively compared our approaches in terms of effectiveness and rigor.ResultsCohorts A and B were similar in terms of the amount of data collected. However, our rapid deductive CFIR approach required 409.5 analyst hours compared to 683 h during the traditional deductive CFIR approach. The rapid deductive approach eliminated $7250 in transcription costs. The facility-level analysis phase provided the greatest savings: 14 h/facility for the traditional analysis versus 3.92 h/facility for the rapid analysis. Data interpretation required the same number of hours for both approaches.ConclusionOur rapid deductive CFIR approach was less time intensive and eliminated transcription costs, yet effective in meeting evaluation objectives and establishing rigor. Researchers should consider the following when employing our approach: (1) team expertise in the CFIR and qualitative methods, (2) level of detail needed to meet project aims, (3) mode of data to analyze, and (4) advantages and disadvantages of using the CFIR.

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/.

Dataset Information

Consolidated Framework for Collaboration Research derived from a systematic review of theories, models, frameworks and principles for cross-sector collaboration.

Publications

Consolidated Framework for Collaboration Research derived from a systematic review of theories, models, frameworks and principles for cross-sector collaboration.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets