Dataset Information

Implementation science in maternity care: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite wide recognition that clinical care should be informed by the best available evidence, this does not always occur. Despite a myriad of theories, models and frameworks to promote evidence-based population health, there is still a long way to go, particularly in maternity care. The aim of this study is to appraise the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions in maternity care. This is achieved by clarifying if and how implementation science theories, models, and frameworks are used.

Methods

To map relevant literature, a scoping review was conducted of articles published between January 2005 and December 2019, guided by Peters and colleagues' (2015) approach. Specifically, the following academic databases were systematically searched to identify publications that presented findings on implementation science or the implementation process (rather than just the intervention effect): Business Source Complete; CINAHL Plus with Full Text; Health Business Elite; Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition; Medline; PsycARTICLES; PsycINFO; and PubMed. Information about each study was extracted using a purposely designed data extraction form.

Results

Of the 1181 publications identified, 158 were included in this review. Most of these reported on factors that enabled implementation, including knowledge, training, service provider motivation, effective multilevel coordination, leadership and effective communication-yet there was limited expressed use of a theory, model or framework to guide implementation. Of the 158 publications, 144 solely reported on factors that helped and/or hindered implementation, while only 14 reported the use of a theory, model and/or framework. When a theory, model or framework was used, it typically guided data analysis or, to a lesser extent, the development of data collection tools-rather than for instance, the design of the study.

Conclusion

Given that models and frameworks can help to describe phenomenon, and theories can help to both describe and explain it, evidence-based maternity care might be promoted via the greater expressed use of these to ultimately inform implementation science. Specifically, advancing evidence-based maternity care, worldwide, will require the academic community to make greater explicit and judicious use of theories, models, and frameworks.

Registration

Registered with the Joanna Briggs Institute (registration number not provided).

SUBMITTER: Dadich A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7860184 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this scoping review is to provide a synthesis of the available literature on implementation science in critical care settings. Specifically, we aimed to identify the evidence-based practices selected for implementation, the frequency and type of implementation strategies used to foster change, and the process and clinical outcomes associated with implementation.Data sourcesA librarian-assisted search was performed using three electronic databases.Study selectionArticles that reported outcomes aimed at disseminating, implementing, or sustaining an evidence-based intervention or practice, used established implementation strategies, and were conducted in a critical care unit were included.Data extractionTwo reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text of articles to determine eligibility. Data extraction was performed using customized fields established a priori within a systematic review software system.Data synthesisOf 1,707 citations, 82 met eligibility criteria. Studies included prospective research investigations, quality improvement projects, and implementation science trials. The most common practices investigated were use of a ventilator-associated pneumonia bundle, nutritional support protocols, and the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium Monitoring/Management, and Early Exercise/Mobility bundle. A variety of implementation strategies were used to facilitate evidence adoption, most commonly educational meetings, auditing and feedback, developing tools, and use of local opinion leaders. The majority of studies (76/82, 93%) reported using more than one implementation strategy. Few studies specifically used implementation science designs and frameworks to systematically evaluate both implementation and clinical outcomes.ConclusionsThe field of critical care has experienced slow but steady gains in the number of investigations specifically guided by implementation science. However, given the exponential growth of evidence-based practices and guidelines in this same period, much work remains to critically evaluate the most effective mechanisms to integrate and sustain these practices across diverse critical care settings and teams.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension and diabetes are becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide. Telemedicine is an accessible and cost-effective means of supporting hypertension and diabetes management, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of technological solutions for care. However, to date, no review has examined the contextual factors that influence the implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension or diabetes worldwide.ObjectiveWe adopted a comprehensive implementation research perspective to synthesize the barriers to and facilitators of implementing telemedicine interventions for the management of hypertension, diabetes, or both.MethodsWe performed a scoping review involving searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify studies published in English from 2017 to 2022 describing barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension and diabetes management. The coding and synthesis of barriers and facilitators were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsOf the 17,687 records identified, 35 (0.2%) studies were included in our scoping review. We found that facilitators of and barriers to implementation were dispersed across the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Barriers related to cost, patient needs and resources (eg, lack of consideration of language needs, culture, and rural residency), and personal attributes of patients (eg, demographics and priorities) were the most common. Facilitators related to the design and packaging of the intervention (eg, user-friendliness), patient needs and resources (eg, personalized information that leveraged existing strengths), implementation climate (eg, intervention embedded into existing infrastructure), knowledge of and beliefs about the intervention (eg, convenience of telemedicine), and other personal attributes (eg, technical literacy) were the most common.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the successful implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension and diabetes requires comprehensive efforts at the planning, execution, engagement, and reflection and evaluation stages of intervention implementation to address challenges at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, and environmental levels.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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: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:BackgroundThis study's goal is to identify the existing variation in how, why, and by whom anthropological practice is conducted as part of implementation science projects. As doctorally trained anthropologists, we sought to characterize how and why the term "ethnography" was variously applied in the implementation science literature and characterize the practice of anthropology within and across the field.MethodsWhile we follow the PRISMA-ScR checklist, we present the work with a narrative approach to accurately reflect our review process. A health services librarian developed a search strategy using subject headings and keywords for the following databases: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley), CIHAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection, and Anthropology Plus (EBSCO). We focused on the practice of anthropology in implementation research conducted in a healthcare setting, in English, with no date restrictions. Studies were included if they applied one or several elements of anthropological methods in terms of study design, data collection, and/or analysis.ResultsThe database searches produced 3450 results combined after duplicates were removed, which were added to Rayyan for two rounds of screening by title and abstract. A total of 487 articles were included in the full-text screening. Of these, 227 were included and received data extraction that we recorded and analyzed with descriptive statistics in three main domains: (1) anthropological methods; (2) implementation science methods; and (3) study context. We found the use of characteristic tools of anthropology like ethnography and field notes are usually not systematically described but often mentioned. Further, we found that research design decisions and compromises (e.g., length of time in the field, logistics of stakeholder involvement, reconciling diverse firsthand experiences) that often impact anthropological approaches are not systematically described.ConclusionsAnthropological work often supports larger, mixed-methods implementation projects without being thoroughly reported. Context is essential to anthropological practice and implicitly fundamental to implementation research, yet the goals of anthropology and how its practice informs larger research projects are often not explicitly stated.

Project description:BackgroundThe continuous growth of the older adult population will have implications for the organization of health and social care. Potentially, in-home monitoring unobtrusive sensing systems (USSs) can be used to support formal or informal caregivers of older adults, as they can monitor deviant physical and physiological behavior changes. Most existing USSs are not specific to older adult care. Hence, to facilitate the implementation of existing USSs in older adult care, it is important to know which USSs would be more suitable for older adults.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to examine the literature to identify current USSs for monitoring human activities and behaviors and assess their implementation readiness for older adult care.MethodsWe conducted a structured search in the Scopus, Web of Science, and ACM Digital Library databases. Predefined inclusion criteria included studies on unobtrusive sensor-based technology; experimental in nature; aimed at monitoring human social, emotional, physical, and physiological behavior; having the potential to be scalable in in-home care; and having at least 5 adults as participants. Using these criteria, we screened studies by title, abstract, and full text. A deductive thematic analysis based on the Proctor implementation framework along with an additional outcome of external validity was applied to the included studies to identify the factors contributing to successful implementation. Finally, the identified factors were used to report the implementation readiness of the included studies for older adult care.ResultsIn this review, 52 studies were included. Deductive analysis using the implementation framework by Proctor resulted in six factors that can contribute to the successful implementation of USSs in older adult care: study settings, age of participants, activities monitored, sensor setup, sensing technology used, and usefulness of USSs. These factors were associated with the implementation outcomes as follows: study settings and age of participants contributed to external validity, sensor setup contributed to acceptability, usefulness of USSs contributed to adoption, activities monitored contributed to appropriateness, and sensing technology used contributed to implementation cost. Furthermore, the implementation assessment of the included 52 studies showed that none of the studies addressed all the identified factors. This assessment was useful in highlighting studies that have addressed multiple factors; thus, these studies represent a step ahead in the implementation process.ConclusionsThis review is the first to scope state-of-the-art USSs suitable for older adult care. Although the included 52 USS studies fulfilled the basic criteria to be suitable for older adult care, systems leveraging radio frequency technology in a no-contact sensor setup for monitoring life risk or health wellness activities are more suitable for older adult care. Finally, this review has extended the discussion about unobtrusiveness as a property of systems that cannot be measured in binary because it varies greatly with user perception and context.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of low-value care (LVC) is a persistent problem that calls for knowledge about strategies for de-implementation. However, studies are dispersed across many clinical fields, and there is no overview of strategies that can be used to support the de-implementation of LVC. The extent to which strategies used for implementation are also used in de-implementing LVC is unknown. The aim of this scoping review is to (1) identify strategies for the de-implementation of LVC described in the scientific literature and (2) compare de-implementation strategies to implementation strategies as specified in the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (ERIC) and strategies added by Perry et al. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted according to recommendations outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. Four scientific databases were searched, relevant articles were snowball searched, and the journal Implementation Science was searched manually for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies of strategies designed to reduce the use of LVC. Two reviewers conducted all abstract and full-text reviews, and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data-charting form. The strategies were first coded inductively and then mapped onto the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies.ResultsThe scoping review identified a total of 71 unique de-implementation strategies described in the literature. Of these, 62 strategies could be mapped onto ERIC strategies, and four strategies onto one added category. Half (50%) of the 73 ERIC implementation strategies were used for de-implementation purposes. Five identified de-implementation strategies could not be mapped onto any of the existing strategies in ERIC.ConclusionsSimilar strategies are used for de-implementation and implementation. However, only a half of the implementation strategies included in the ERIC compilation were represented in the de-implementation studies, which may imply that some strategies are being underused or that they are not applicable for de-implementation purposes. The strategies assess and redesign workflow (a strategy previously suggested to be added to ERIC), accountability tool, and communication tool (unique new strategies for de-implementation) could complement the existing ERIC compilation when used for de-implementation purposes.