4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Influence of external contextual factors on the implementation of health and social care interventions into practice within or across countries—a protocol for a ‘best fit’ framework synthesis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The widespread implementation of interventions is often hindered by a decline and variability in effectiveness across implementation sites. It is anticipated that variations in the characteristics of the external context in different sites, such as the political and funding environment, socio-cultural context, physical environment or population demographics can influence implementation outcome. However, there is only a limited understanding about which and how external contextual factors influence implementation. We aim to develop a comprehensive framework conceptualising the influence of external contextual factors on implementation, particularly when spreading health and social care interventions within or across countries.

          Methods

          The review will use the ‘best fit’ framework synthesis approach. In the first stage of the review, we will examine existing frameworks, models, concepts and theories on external contextual factors and their influence on implementation from a variety of sectors and disciplines including health and social care, education, environmental studies and international development fields. The resulting a priori meta-framework will be tested and refined in the second review stage by analysing evidence from empirical studies focusing on the implementation of health and social care interventions within or across countries. Searches will be conducted in bibliographic databases such as MEDLINE, ERIC, HMIC and IBSS, grey literature sources and on relevant websites. We will also search reference lists, relevant journals, perform citation searches and ask experts in the field. There is no restriction to study type, setting, intervention type or implementation strategy to enable obtaining a broad and in-depth knowledge from various sources of evidence.

          Discussion

          The review will lead to a comprehensive framework for understanding the influence of external contextual factors on implementation, particularly when spreading health and social care interventions within or across countries. The framework is anticipated to help identify factors explaining the decline and variability in effectiveness of interventions and assessing the prospects of implementation effectiveness, when spreading interventions. We do not intend to only develop another stand-alone implementation framework but one that can be used in conjunction with existing frameworks. The framework can be honed and validated in future empirical research.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO CRD42018084485

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework

          Background The effectiveness of complex interventions, as well as their success in reaching relevant populations, is critically influenced by their implementation in a given context. Current conceptual frameworks often fail to address context and implementation in an integrated way and, where addressed, they tend to focus on organisational context and are mostly concerned with specific health fields. Our objective was to develop a framework to facilitate the structured and comprehensive conceptualisation and assessment of context and implementation of complex interventions. Methods The Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework was developed in an iterative manner and underwent extensive application. An initial framework based on a scoping review was tested in rapid assessments, revealing inconsistencies with respect to the underlying concepts. Thus, pragmatic utility concept analysis was undertaken to advance the concepts of context and implementation. Based on these findings, the framework was revised and applied in several systematic reviews, one health technology assessment (HTA) and one applicability assessment of very different complex interventions. Lessons learnt from these applications and from peer review were incorporated, resulting in the CICI framework. Results The CICI framework comprises three dimensions—context, implementation and setting—which interact with one another and with the intervention dimension. Context comprises seven domains (i.e., geographical, epidemiological, socio-cultural, socio-economic, ethical, legal, political); implementation consists of five domains (i.e., implementation theory, process, strategies, agents and outcomes); setting refers to the specific physical location, in which the intervention is put into practise. The intervention and the way it is implemented in a given setting and context can occur on a micro, meso and macro level. Tools to operationalise the framework comprise a checklist, data extraction tools for qualitative and quantitative reviews and a consultation guide for applicability assessments. Conclusions The CICI framework addresses and graphically presents context, implementation and setting in an integrated way. It aims at simplifying and structuring complexity in order to advance our understanding of whether and how interventions work. The framework can be applied in systematic reviews and HTA as well as primary research and facilitate communication among teams of researchers and with various stakeholders. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0552-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions.

            To address the vast gap between current knowledge and practice in the area of dissemination and implementation research, we address terminology, provide examples of successful applications of this research, discuss key sources of support, and highlight directions and opportunities for future advances. There is a need for research testing approaches to scaling up and sustaining effective interventions, and we propose that further advances in the field will be achieved by focusing dissemination and implementation research on 5 core values: rigor and relevance, efficiency, collaboration, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews.

              The role of critical appraisal of qualitative studies in systematic reviews remains an ongoing cause for debate. Key to such a debate is whether quality assessment can or should be used to exclude studies. In our study, we extended the use of existing criteria to assess the quality of reporting of studies included in two qualitative systematic reviews. We then excluded studies deemed to be inadequately reported from the subsequent analysis. We tested the impact of these exclusions on the overall findings of the synthesis and its depth or thickness. Exclusion of so-called inadequately reported studies had no meaningful effect on the synthesis. There was a correlation between quality of reporting of a study and its values as a source for the final synthesis. We propose that there is a possible case for excluding inadequately reported studies from qualitative evidence synthesis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                alexandra.ziemann@city.ac.uk
                l.brown@bath.ac.uk
                E.A.Sadler@soton.ac.uk
                josephine.ocloo@kcl.ac.uk
                a.boaz@sgul.kingston.ac.uk
                jane.sandall@kcl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                4 November 2019
                4 November 2019
                2019
                : 8
                : 258
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8497, GRID grid.28577.3f, Centre for Healthcare Innovation Research (CHIR), , City, University of London, ; Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2322 6764, GRID grid.13097.3c, King’s Improvement Science and Centre for Implementation Science, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, , King’s College London and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, ; PO28, David Goldberg Centre, 16 De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2162 1699, GRID grid.7340.0, Department of Social and Policy Sciences, , University of Bath, ; 3 East, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9297, GRID grid.5491.9, Department of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, , University of Southampton, ; Southampton, SO17 1BJ UK
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2322 6764, GRID grid.13097.3c, Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, , King’s College London and NIHR CLAHRC South London, ; PO 28, David Goldberg Centre, 16 De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF UK
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0536 3773, GRID grid.15538.3a, Kingston University and St. George’s, University of London and NIHR CLAHRC South London, ; 6th Floor, Hunter Wing, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE UK
                [7 ]GRID grid.425213.3, Department of Women and Children’s Health, School of Life Course Science, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, , King’s College London and NIHR CLAHRC South London, St. Thomas’ Hospital, ; London, SE1 7EH UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5996-8484
                Article
                1180
                10.1186/s13643-019-1180-8
                6827205
                31685025
                8d16a055-3709-4550-8e1a-5c2c107ec9bc
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 24 July 2018
                : 6 October 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000380, Guy's and St Thomas' Charity;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012176, Maudsley Charity;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Funded by: Health Foundation
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research
                Categories
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Public health
                implementation,innovation,context,spread,diffusion,scale-up,healthcare,social care,framework,theory,‘best fit’ synthesis

                Comments

                Comment on this article