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

      Factors influencing the implementation of mental health recovery into services: a systematic mixed studies review

      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

          Countries around the world have committed in policy to transforming their mental health services towards a recovery orientation. How has mental health recovery been implemented into services for adults, and what factors influence the implementation of recovery-oriented services?

          Methods

          This systematic mixed studies review followed a convergent qualitative synthesis design and used the best-fit framework synthesis method. Librarians ran searches in Ovid- MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, Ovid-PsycInfo, EBSCO-CINAHL Plus with Full Text, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion or exclusion using DistillerSR. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods peer-reviewed studies published since 1998 were included if they reported a new effort to transform adult mental health services towards a recovery orientation, and reported findings related to implementation experience, process, or factors. Data was extracted in NVivo12 to the 38 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The synthesis included a within-case and a cross-case thematic analysis of data coded to each CFIR construct. Cases were types of recovery-oriented innovations.

          Results

          Seventy studies met our inclusion criteria. These were grouped into seven types of recovery-oriented innovations (cases) for within-case and cross-case synthesis. Themes illustrating common implementation factors across innovations are presented by CFIR domain: Intervention Characteristics (flexibility, relationship building, lived experience); Inner Setting (traditional biomedical vs. recovery-oriented approach, the importance of organizational and policy commitment to recovery-transformation, staff turnover, lack of resources to support personal recovery goals, information gaps about new roles and procedures, interpersonal relationships), Characteristics of Individuals (variability in knowledge about recovery, characteristics of recovery-oriented service providers); Process (the importance of planning, early and continuous engagement with stakeholders). Very little data from included studies was extracted to the outer setting domain, and therefore, we present only some initial observations and note that further research on outer setting implementation factors is needed.

          Conclusion

          The CFIR required some adaptation for use as an implementation framework in this review. The common implementation factors presented are an important starting point for stakeholders to consider when implementing recovery-oriented services.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01646-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references165

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

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

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

            Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

            Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                myra.piat@douglas.mcgill.ca
                megan.wainwright@douglas.mcgill.ca
                eleni.sofouli@douglas.mcgill.ca
                brigitte.vachon@umontreal.ca
                tania.deslauriers@umontreal.ca
                cassandra.prefontaine@uqtr.ca
                francesca.frati@mcgill.ca
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                5 May 2021
                5 May 2021
                2021
                : 10
                : 134
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.412078.8, ISNI 0000 0001 2353 5268, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, ; 6875, boul. LaSalle, Montréal, Québec H4H 1R3 Canada
                [2 ]GRID grid.14709.3b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8649, McGill University, ; Québec, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, Canada
                [4 ]GRID grid.14848.31, ISNI 0000 0001 2292 3357, School of Rehabilitation, , Université de Montréal, ; C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montreal, Québec H3C 3J7 Canada
                [5 ]GRID grid.14848.31, ISNI 0000 0001 2292 3357, School of Rehabilitation, , Université de Montréal, ; 7077 avenue du Parc, Montreal, QC H3N 1X7 Canada
                [6 ]GRID grid.265703.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2197 8284, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, ; 3351 Boulevard des Forges, Trois-Rivières, QC G8Z 4M3 Canada
                [7 ]GRID grid.14709.3b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8649, Schulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering, , McGill University, ; 809, Sherbrooke W, Montreal, Québec H3A 0C9 Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5933-0974
                Article
                1646
                10.1186/s13643-021-01646-0
                8101029
                33952336
                d4a75aaa-ecf3-4a5b-9d09-95d7e799c894
                © The Author(s) 2021

                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
                : 7 May 2020
                : 22 March 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research
                Award ID: FRN 144043
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Public health
                systematic review,mixed methods,mental health recovery,recovery-oriented services,recovery innovations,implementation science,consolidated framework for implementation research (cfir),best-fit framework synthesis

                Comments

                Comment on this article