6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Selecting and tailoring implementation interventions: a concept mapping approach

      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

          To improve the uptake of research into practice, knowledge translation frameworks recommend tailoring implementation strategies to address practice barriers. This study reports our experience pairing the Theoretical Domains Framework with information from multiple stakeholder groups to co-develop practice-informed strategies for improving the implementation of an evidence-based outcome measurement tool across a large community health system for preschoolers with communication impairments.

          Methods

          Concept mapping was used to identify strategies for improving implementation of the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS) in Ontario Canada’s Preschool Speech and Language Program. This work was done in five stages. First, we interviewed 37 speech-language pathologists (clinicians) who identified 90 unique strategies to resolve practice barriers to FOCUS implementation. Second, clinicians ( n = 34), policy-makers ( n = 3), and members of the FOCUS research team ( n = 6) sorted and rated the strategies by importance and feasibility. Third, stakeholders’ sorting data were analyzed to generate a two-dimensional concept map. Based on the rating data from stakeholders, we prioritized a list of strategies that were rated as highly important and highly feasible, and summarized the practice barriers addressed by each of the prioritized strategies. Fourth, we validated these findings with stakeholders via an online survey. Fifth, the mechanisms of action of the prioritized list of strategies were considered based on available evidence from the Theoretical Domains Framework and associated behavior change literature.

          Results

          Stakeholders categorized the 90 unique implementation strategies into a six-cluster concept map. Based on stakeholders’ ratings, a list of 14 implementation strategies were prioritized. These implementation strategies were reported to resolve barriers within the environmental context and resources and beliefs about consequences domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. All but one of the prioritized strategies have a demonstrated link in resolving existing barriers according to the behavioral change literature.

          Conclusions

          Our study contributes to a growing literature that demonstrates the process of tailoring implementation strategies to specific barriers. Practical drawbacks and benefits of using concept mapping as a way to engage stakeholders in implementation research are discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

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

          Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study

          Background Poor terminological consistency for core concepts in implementation science has been widely noted as an obstacle to effective meta-analyses. This inconsistency is also a barrier for those seeking guidance from the research literature when developing and planning implementation initiatives. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aims to address one area of terminological inconsistency: discrete implementation strategies involving one process or action used to support a practice change. The present report is on the second stage of the ERIC project that focuses on providing initial validation of the compilation of 73 implementation strategies that were identified in the first phase. Findings Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation science and clinical practice (N = 35). These key stakeholders used concept mapping sorting and rating activities to place the 73 implementation strategies into similar groups and to rate each strategy’s relative importance and feasibility. Multidimensional scaling analysis provided a quantitative representation of the relationships among the strategies, all but one of which were found to be conceptually distinct from the others. Hierarchical cluster analysis supported organizing the 73 strategies into 9 categories. The ratings data reflect those strategies identified as the most important and feasible. Conclusions This study provides initial validation of the implementation strategies within the ERIC compilation as being conceptually distinct. The categorization and strategy ratings of importance and feasibility may facilitate the search for, and selection of, strategies that are best suited for implementation efforts in a particular setting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation

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

              The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

              Background Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction. Debate Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders. Conclusions First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ekwok5@uwo.ca
                sheila@nca.uwo.ca
                bcollin7@uwo.ca
                janis.cardy@uwo.ca
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                6 May 2020
                6 May 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 385
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.39381.30, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8884, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, , University of Western Ontario, ; Elborn College, 1201 Western Road, London, Ontario N6G 1H1 Canada
                [2 ]GRID grid.39381.30, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8884, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, , Western University and The National Centre for Audiology, Western University, Elborn College, ; RM 2262K, 1201 Western Road, London, Ontario N6G 1H1 Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4893-2574
                Article
                5270
                10.1186/s12913-020-05270-x
                7203846
                32375752
                d10a89f2-5432-4fb3-ace2-44cb7e89e527
                © The Author(s) 2020

                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.

                History
                : 30 July 2019
                : 29 April 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research-Doctoral Research Award
                Award ID: 152272
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Ontario Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Health & Social care
                implementation intervention,speech-language pathologist,concept mapping,practice-based research,outcome measurement,population outcomes; health outcomes; stakeholder engagement,implementation planning

                Comments

                Comment on this article