Dataset Information

The Application of Systems Science in Nutrition-Related Behaviors and Outcomes Implementation Research: A Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT: Use of systems science can improve the dissemination and implementation (D&I) process. However, little is known about use of systems science in nutrition D&I research. The purpose of this article is to synthesize the ways in which systems science methodology is applied in nutrition D&I research. Scoping review methodology involved searching 6 academic databases for full-text, peer-reviewed, English articles published between 1970 and 2020 that employed systems science within nutrition D&I research. Data extraction included intervention type, population, study aim, methods, theoretical approach, outcomes, and results. Descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis followed. Thirty-four retained articles qualitatively identified benefits (successful planning and organization of complex interventions) and challenges (limited resources, trainings, and lack of knowledge) to utilizing systems science in nutrition D&I research. Future research should work toward building knowledge capacity among nutrition practitioners by increasing available trainings and resources to enhance the utilization of systems science in nutrition D&I research.

SUBMITTER: Walker AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8435056 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:IntroductionEver since the 1960s, Guatemala has been a principle site for global academic research on child growth and nutrition. Nevertheless, Guatemala still has one of the highest rates of child stunting in the world. Since 2012, Guatemala has had a comprehensive national policy on stunting, calling for a renewed investment in innovative, multilevel nutrition interventions and implementation science. Our objective was to perform a systematic search and scoping review of the literature on stunting in Guatemala to identify gaps in research and opportunities for responding to this unique policy opportunity.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search and scoping review on stunting in Guatemala, searching the PubMed, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases. Eligible articles were of any design or format, published in English and Spanish from 2000 to 2018. Articles were thematically grouped by those published before (2000-2011) and after (2012-2018) the new national policy initiatives.ResultsWe identified a total of 1934 articles through database searches. After full-text review, 104 were included in the synthesis. The volume of published articles on stunting increased from a mean of 3.2 to 9.4 articles/year before and after 2012. There was a shift toward articles generating new data on priority populations, including rural indigenous Maya populations (34% vs 61%, χ2 test, p=0.01). However, the proportion of studies conducting implementation evaluations or testing new interventions was low and did not change significantly (34% vs 18%, χ2 test, p=0.07). Among 17 identified intervention studies, only 4 tested multilevel interventions, and there were no published interventions incorporating nutrition-sensitive interventions.ConclusionsA systematic search and scoping review of the literature on child stunting in Guatemala identified critical opportunities for new research in multilevel interventions, nutrition-sensitive interventions and implementation science.

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:IntroductionChild malnutrition in all forms is known globally as the leading cause of poor health. Planning and solving this challenge require sources that collect data accurately. Nutrition surveillance systems (NSS), nutrition registry systems (NRS) and nutrition information systems (NIS) collect and analyse data on nutrition status. Unfortunately, these systems only exist in a few countries. The methods that these systems use significantly differ and their effectiveness is also scarcely researched. This scoping literature review aimed to conduct a survey on NSS, NRS and NIS that collect data on children's nutrition at national and international levels, along with their attributes.Methods and analysisThe methods and analyses of this scoping review follow the Arksey and O'Malley's methodology. This scoping literature review will be conducted in five stages based on this method. (1) The main research question and subquestions are identified. (2) Relevant studies are extracted. In this step, we will search electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Science. A manual search will also be performed in Google Scholar, grey literature, and the websites of organisations such as WHO, UNICEF, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Health Service, International Food Policy Research Institute, Food and Agriculture Organization, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance, United Nations World Food Programme, and United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition. (3) Extracted studies are separately reviewed by two reviewers based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and eligible studies are then selected. A third reviewer resolves disagreements. (4) A checklist is developed to extract the features. Data of included systems are separately extracted and entered into a checklist by two reviewers. A third reviewer then resolves any disagreement. (5) Data are summarised and analysed and are presented in tables and figures.DiscussionThis scoping literature review provides strong evidence of the status of systems that collect data on the status of child nutrition. This evidence can help select best practices which can be applied to develop future systems. It can also be a positive step towards achieving an integrated system.

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:BackgroundImproving access to high-quality healthcare for individuals in correctional settings is critical to advancing health equity in the United States. Compared to the general population, criminal-legal involved individuals experience higher rates of chronic health conditions and poorer health outcomes. Implementation science frameworks and strategies offer useful tools to integrate health interventions into criminal-legal settings and to improve care. A review of implementation science in criminal-legal settings to date is necessary to advance future applications. This systematic review summarizes research that has harnessed implementation science to promote the uptake of effective health interventions in adult criminal-legal settings.MethodsA systematic review of seven databases (Academic Search Premier, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, ProQuest Criminal Justice Database, ProQuest Sociological Abstracts, MEDLINE/PubMed) was conducted. Eligible studies used an implementation science framework to assess implementation outcomes, determinants, and/or implementation strategies in adult criminal-legal settings. Qualitative synthesis was used to extract and summarize settings, study designs, sample characteristics, methods, and application of implementation science methods. Implementation strategies were further analyzed using the Pragmatic Implementation Reporting Tool.ResultsTwenty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Studies implemented interventions to address infectious diseases (n=9), substance use (n=6), mental health (n=5), co-occurring substance use and mental health (n=2), or other health conditions (n=2). Studies varied in their operationalization and description of guiding implementation frameworks/taxonomies. Sixteen studies reported implementation determinants and 12 studies measured implementation outcomes, with acceptability (n=5), feasibility (n=3), and reach (n=2) commonly assessed. Six studies tested implementation strategies. Systematic review results were used to generate recommendations for improving implementation success in criminal-legal contexts.ConclusionsThe focus on implementation determinants in correctional health studies reflects the need to tailor implementation efforts to complex organizational and inter-agency contexts. Future studies should investigate policy factors that influence implementation success, design, and test implementation strategies tailored to determinants, and investigate a wider array of implementation outcomes relevant to criminal-legal settings, health interventions relevant to adult and juvenile populations, and health equity outcomes.Trial registrationA study protocol (CRD42020114111) was registered with Prospero.

Project description:BackgroundDespite 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.MethodsTo 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionGiven 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.RegistrationRegistered with the Joanna Briggs Institute (registration number not provided).

Project description:Operational research (OR) is the discipline of using models, either quantitative or qualitative, to aid decision-making in complex implementation problems. The methods of OR have been used in healthcare since the 1950s in diverse areas such as emergency medicine and the interface between acute and community care; hospital performance; scheduling and management of patient home visits; scheduling of patient appointments; and many other complex implementation problems of an operational or logistical nature.To date, there has been limited debate about the role that operational research should take within implementation science. I detail three such roles for OR all grounded in upfront system thinking: structuring implementation problems, prospective evaluation of improvement interventions, and strategic reconfiguration. Case studies from mental health, emergency medicine, and stroke care are used to illustrate each role. I then describe the challenges for applied OR within implementation science at the organisational, interventional, and disciplinary levels. Two key challenges include the difficulty faced in achieving a position of mutual understanding between implementation scientists and research users and a stark lack of evaluation of OR interventions. To address these challenges, I propose a research agenda to evaluate applied OR through the lens of implementation science, the liberation of OR from the specialist research and consultancy environment, and co-design of models with service users. Operational research is a mature discipline that has developed a significant volume of methodology to improve health services. OR offers implementation scientists the opportunity to do more upfront system thinking before committing resources or taking risks. OR has three roles within implementation science: structuring an implementation problem, prospective evaluation of implementation problems, and a tool for strategic reconfiguration of health services. Challenges facing OR as implementation science include limited evidence and evaluation of impact, limited service user involvement, a lack of managerial awareness, effective communication between research users and OR modellers, and availability of healthcare data. To progress the science, a focus is needed in three key areas: evaluation of OR interventions, embedding the knowledge of OR in health services, and educating OR modellers about the aims and benefits of service user involvement.

Dataset Information

The Application of Systems Science in Nutrition-Related Behaviors and Outcomes Implementation Research: A Scoping Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets