Dataset Information

A scoping review of the use of ethnographic approaches in implementation research and recommendations for reporting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Researchers have argued for the value of ethnographic approaches to implementation science (IS). The contested meanings of ethnography pose challenges and possibilities to its use in IS. The goal of this study was to identify sources of commonality and variation, and to distill a set of recommendations for reporting ethnographic approaches in IS.

Methods

We included in our scoping review English-language academic journal articles meeting two criteria: (1) IS articles in the healthcare field and (2) articles that described their approach as ethnographic. In March 2019, we implemented our search criteria in four academic databases and one academic journal. Abstracts were screened for inclusion by at least two authors. We iteratively develop a codebook for full-text analysis and double-coded included articles. We summarized the findings and developed reporting recommendations through discussion.

Results

Of the 210 articles whose abstracts were screened, 73 were included in full-text analysis. The number of articles increased in recent years. Ethnographic approaches were used within a wide variety of theoretical approaches and research designs. Articles primarily described using interviews and observational methods as part of their ethnographic approaches, though numerous other methods were also employed. The most cited rationales for using ethnographic approaches were to capture context-specific phenomena, understand insiders' perspective, and study complex interactions. In reporting on ethnographic approaches, we recommend that researchers provide information on researcher training and position, reflect on researchers' positionality, describe observational methods in detail, and report results from all the methods used.

Conclusion

The number of IS studies using ethnography has increased in recent years. Ethnography holds great potential for contributing further to IS, particularly to studying implementation strategy mechanisms and understanding complex adaptive systems.

SUBMITTER: Gertner AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8153409 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommunity Advisory Boards (CABs) have been frequently used to engage diverse partners to inform research projects. Yet, evaluating the quality of engagement has not been routine. We describe a multi-method ethnographic approach documenting and assessing partner engagement in two "virtual" CABs, for which we conducted all meetings remotely.MethodsTwo research projects for increasing equitable COVID-19 testing, vaccination, and clinical trial participation for underserved communities involved remote CAB meetings. Thirty-three partners representing 17 community groups participated in 15 sessions across the two CABs facilitated by a social change organization. We developed ethnographic documentation forms to assess multiple aspects of CAB member engagement (e.g., time spent speaking, modality used, types of interactions). Documenters were trained to observe CAB sub-groups via virtual sessions. Debriefing with the documentation team after CAB meetings supported quality assurance and process refinement. CAB members completed a brief validated survey after each meeting to assess the quality and frequency of engagement. Content and rapid thematic analysis were used to analyze documentation data. Quantitative data were summarized as frequencies and means. Qualitative and quantitative findings were triangulated.ResultsA total of 4,540 interactions were identified across 15 meetings. The most frequent interaction was providing information (44%), followed by responding (37-38%). The quality and frequency of stakeholder engagement were rated favorably (average 4.7 of 5). Most CAB members (96%) reported good/excellent engagement. Specific comments included appreciation for the diversity of perspectives represented by the CAB members and suggestions for improved live interpretation. Debriefing sessions led to several methodological refinements for the documentation process and forms.ConclusionWe highlight key strategies for documenting and assessing community engagement. Our methods allowed for rich ethnographic data collection that refined our work with community partners. We recommend ongoing trainings, including debriefing sessions and routinely reviewed assessment of data to strengthen meaningful community engagement.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation research has emerged as part of evidence-based decision-making efforts to plug current gaps in the translation of research evidence into health policy and practice. While there has been a growing number of initiatives promoting the uptake of implementation research in Africa, its role and effectiveness remain unclear, particularly in the context of universal health coverage (UHC). Hence, this scoping review aimed to identify and characterise the use of implementation research initiatives for assessing UHC-related interventions or programmes in Africa.MethodsThe review protocol was developed based on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, as enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched. The search also included a hand search of relevant grey literature and reference lists. Literature sources involving the application of implementation research in the context of UHC in Africa were eligible for inclusion.ResultsThe database search yielded 2153 records. We identified 12 additional records from hand search of reference lists. After the removal of duplicates, we had 2051 unique records, of which 26 studies were included in the review. Implementation research was used within ten distinct UHC-related contexts, including HIV; maternal and child health; voluntary male medical circumcision; healthcare financing; immunisation; healthcare data quality; malaria diagnosis; primary healthcare quality improvement; surgery and typhoid fever control. The consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) was the most frequently used framework. Qualitative and mixed-methods study designs were the commonest methods used. Implementation research was mostly used to guide post-implementation evaluation of health programmes and the contextualisation of findings to improve future implementation outcomes. The most commonly reported contextual facilitators were political support, funding, sustained collaboration and effective programme leadership. Reported barriers included inadequate human and other resources; lack of incentives; perception of implementation as additional work burden; and socio-cultural barriers.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that implementation research can be used to achieve UHC-related outcomes in Africa. It has identified important facilitators and barriers to the use of implementation research for promoting UHC in the region.

Project description:IntroductionImplementation research has emerged as part of evidence-based decision-making efforts to plug current gaps in the translation of research evidence into health policy and practice. While there has been a growing number of institutions and initiatives promoting the uptake of implementation research in Africa, their role and effectiveness remain unclear, particularly in the context of universal health coverage (UHC). This review aims to extensively identify and characterise the nature, facilitators and barriers to the use of implementation research for assessing or evaluating UHC-related interventions or programmes in Africa.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be developed based on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute. It will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive search of the following electronic databases will be conducted: Medline (via PubMed), Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Relevant grey literature and reference lists will also be searched. All publications describing the application of implementation research in the context of UHC will be considered for inclusion. Findings will be narratively synthesised and analysed using a predefined conceptual framework. Where applicable, quantitative evidence will be aggregated using summary statistics. There will be consultation of stakeholders, including UHC-oriented health professionals, programme managers, implementation researchers and policy-makers; to provide methodological, conceptual and practical insights.Ethics and disseminationThe data used in this review will be sourced from publicly available literature; hence, this study will not require ethical approval. Findings and recommendations will be disseminated to reach a diverse audience, including UHC advocates, implementation researchers and key health system stakeholders within the African region. Additionally, findings will be disseminated through an open-access publication in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development.MethodsWe searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items.ResultsIn total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0-84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources.ConclusionsOutcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste.

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:INTRODUCTION:There is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Our review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. We will search for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Moreover, we will carry out lateral searches from the reference lists of the included studies, as well as from the lists of articles citing the included ones. One reviewer will screen the full list, which will be randomly split into two halves and independently screened by the other two reviewers. Two reviewers will perform data extraction independently. Discrepancies will be solved through discussion. In addition, this search strategy will be supplemented by a grey literature search. The interventions found will be classified as assessed or suggested, as well as according to different criteria, in relation to their target (journal policies, journal editors, authors, reviewers, funders, ethical boards or others) or the research stage at which they are performed (design, conducting, reporting or peer review). Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This scoping review will contribute to a better understanding and a broader perspective on how the problem of adhering better to reporting guidelines has been tackled so far. This could be a major first step towards developing future strategies to improve compliance with reporting guidelines in health research.

Project description:BackgroundProctor and colleagues' 2011 paper proposed a taxonomy of eight implementation outcomes and challenged the field to address a research agenda focused on conceptualization, measurement, and theory building. Ten years later, this paper maps the field's progress in implementation outcomes research. This scoping review describes how each implementation outcome has been studied, research designs and methods used, and the contexts and settings represented in the current literature. We also describe the role of implementation outcomes in relation to implementation strategies and other outcomes.MethodsArksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews guided our methods. Using forward citation tracing, we identified all literature citing the 2011 paper. We conducted our search in the Web of Science (WOS) database and added citation alerts sent to the first author from the publisher for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. This produced 1346 titles and abstracts. Initial abstract screening yielded 480 manuscripts, and full-text review yielded 400 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria (empirical assessment of at least one implementation outcome).ResultsSlightly more than half (52.1%) of included manuscripts examined acceptability. Fidelity (39.3%), feasibility (38.6%), adoption (26.5%), and appropriateness (21.8%) were also commonly examined. Penetration (16.0%), sustainability (15.8%), and cost (7.8%) were less frequently examined. Thirty-two manuscripts examined implementation outcomes not included in the original taxonomy. Most studies took place in healthcare (45.8%) or behavioral health (22.5%) organizations. Two-thirds used observational designs. We found little evidence of progress in testing the relationships between implementation strategies and implementation outcomes, leaving us ill-prepared to know how to achieve implementation success. Moreover, few studies tested the impact of implementation outcomes on other important outcome types, such as service systems and improved individual or population health.ConclusionsOur review presents a comprehensive snapshot of the research questions being addressed by existing implementation outcomes literature and reveals the need for rigorous, analytic research and tests of strategies for attaining implementation outcomes in the next 10 years of outcomes research.