+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mobilising Implementation of i-PARIHS (Mi-PARIHS): development of a facilitation planning tool to accompany the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework


      Read this article at

          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.



          Facilitation makes the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework a popular framework in the field of implementation science. Facilitation allows for flexible application of the i-PARIHS framework by encouraging the iterative tailoring of implementation strategies to a dynamic context. However, successfully harnessing this flexibility can be challenging to navigate, particularly for novice facilitators. Therefore, to support and promote more widespread use of the i-PARIHS framework, and to make it easier for people who are already using i-PARIHS, we have undertaken the Mi-PARIHS Project—Mobilising Implementation of i-PARIHS, focused on developing a suite of practical and pragmatic i-PARIHS resources.


          Through a co-design approach drawing on end-users’ experiences, we developed the Mi-PARIHS Facilitation Planning Tool, and this article reports on the final end-user feedback via an online survey.


          A total of 58 participants completed the online survey. The survey focused on participants’ previous experiences with i-PARIHS, their feedback on the background information provided with the Mi-PARIHS Tool, and their feedback on the tool itself (e.g. clarity, use, satisfaction, improvements). This feedback resulted in the development of a comprehensive 34-item Mi-PARIHS Facilitation Planning Tool that supports i-PARIHS users in their (1) assessment of the i-PARIHS framework’s innovation, context, and recipient constructs; (2) development of a tailored facilitation plan; and (3) repeated use over time to evaluate the effectiveness of facilitation strategies.


          The Mi-PARIHS Facilitation Planning Tool makes framework-guided implementation more accessible and reliable to a wider range of systems and stakeholders, thereby contributing to more consistent implementation of evidence-based practices and other innovations. It addresses the challenge of systematically assessing core constructs of the i-PARIHS framework to develop tailored facilitation strategies. The Mi-PARIHS Facilitation Planning Tool is freely available for use at the website https://www.flinders.edu.au/caring-futures-institute/Mi-PARIHS-tool.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00379-y.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

          Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework

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

              Knowledge translation of research findings

              Background One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred? Discussion We suggest that the basic unit of knowledge translation should usually be up-to-date systematic reviews or other syntheses of research findings. Knowledge translators need to identify the key messages for different target audiences and to fashion these in language and knowledge translation products that are easily assimilated by different audiences. The relative importance of knowledge translation to different target audiences will vary by the type of research and appropriate endpoints of knowledge translation may vary across different stakeholder groups. There are a large number of planned knowledge translation models, derived from different disciplinary, contextual (i.e., setting), and target audience viewpoints. Most of these suggest that planned knowledge translation for healthcare professionals and consumers is more likely to be successful if the choice of knowledge translation strategy is informed by an assessment of the likely barriers and facilitators. Although our evidence on the likely effectiveness of different strategies to overcome specific barriers remains incomplete, there is a range of informative systematic reviews of interventions aimed at healthcare professionals and consumers (i.e., patients, family members, and informal carers) and of factors important to research use by policy makers. Summary There is a substantial (if incomplete) evidence base to guide choice of knowledge translation activities targeting healthcare professionals and consumers. The evidence base on the effects of different knowledge translation approaches targeting healthcare policy makers and senior managers is much weaker but there are a profusion of innovative approaches that warrant further evaluation.

                Author and article information

                Implement Sci Commun
                Implement Sci Commun
                Implementation Science Communications
                BioMed Central (London )
                9 January 2023
                9 January 2023
                : 4
                : 2
                [1 ]GRID grid.1014.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0367 2697, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, ; Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042 Australia
                [2 ]GRID grid.1014.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0367 2697, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, , Flinders University, ; Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042 Australia
                [3 ]GRID grid.410370.1, ISNI 0000 0004 4657 1992, Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, ; 150 South Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02130 USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.38142.3c, ISNI 000000041936754X, Department of Psychiatry, , Harvard Medical School, ; 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115 USA
                Author information
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

                : 14 July 2022
                : 17 November 2022
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2023

                implementation science,knowledge translation,i-parihs framework,implementation tools,facilitation


                Comment on this article