German language questionnaires for assessing implementation constructs and outcomes of psychosocial and health-related interventions: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundOver the past years, implementation science has gained more and more importance in German-speaking countries. Reliable and valid questionnaires are needed for evaluating the implementation of evidence-based practices. On an international level, several initiatives focused on the identification of questionnaires used in English-speaking countries but limited their search processes to mental health and public health settings. Our aim was to identify questionnaires used in German-speaking countries measuring the implementation of interventions in public health and health care settings in general and to assess their psychometric properties.MethodsWe searched five different bibliographic databases (from 1985 to August 2017) and used several other search strategies (e.g., reference lists, forward citation) to obtain our data. We assessed the instruments, which were identified in an independent dual review process, using 12 psychometric rating criteria. Finally, we mapped the instruments’ scales and subscales in regard to the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Implementation Outcome Framework (IOF).ResultsWe identified 31 unique instruments available for the assessment of implementation science constructs. Hospitals and other health care settings were the ones most often investigated (23 instruments), while education and childcare settings, workplace settings, and community settings lacked published instruments. Internal consistency, face and content validity, usability, and structural validity were the aspects most often described. However, most studies did not report on test-retest reliability, known-groups validity, predictive criterion validity, or responsiveness. Overall, the majority of studies did not reveal high-quality instruments, especially regarding the psychometric criteria internal consistency, structural validity, and criterion validity. In addition, we seldom detected instruments operationalizing the CFIR domains intervention characteristics, outer setting, and process, and the IOF constructs adoption, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability.ConclusionsOverall, a sustained and continuous effort is needed to improve the reliability and validity of existing instruments to new ones. Instruments applicable to the assessment of implementation constructs in public health and community settings are urgently needed.Trial registrationThe systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO on October 19, 2017, under the following number: CRD42017075208.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0837-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cross-cultural adaption and psychometric investigation of the German version of the Evidence Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS-36D)

“…Rising implementation research efforts in German-speaking countries necessitate the development and psychometric examination of German instruments assessing implementation research constructs [ 52 ]. Regarding characteristics of individuals, additional well-suited instruments have been translated and validated during the course of our study, for example the Evidence-based Practice Inventory (EBPI) questionnaire [ 76 ].…”

“…In an effort to incorporate additional relevant dimensions, the 15-item EBPAS was expanded to 50 items and 12 dimensions through formative work, which included researcher input, focus groups with program managers and clinicians, and subsequent data reduction [ 27 ]. In the interest of rendering the measure more brief and pragmatic [ 46 ], the 50-item version was reduced to 36-items while retaining 12 dimensions [ 52 ]. On the one hand, the domains assess positive attitudes toward EBP: the intuitive Appeal of EBP, the willingness to adopt EBP given the Requirements to do so, providers’ Openness to new practices and manualized interventions, the Fit of EBP with values and needs of providers and clients, and providers’ perceptions of an increased Job Security provided by learning EBP, of the Organizational Support for learning EBP and of receiving Feedback [ 27 ].…”

“…As argued by Kien et al [52], German instruments assessing implementation science constructs are scarce and psychometric properties rarely reported. This stands in contrast with the growing relevance and increasing efforts of implementation research in German-speaking countries [53][54][55][56][57][58].…”

Psychometric Testing of the German Versions of Three Implementation Outcome Measures

“…To the best of our knowledge, there is currently no generic, reliable, and valid instrument available in the German language that can be used to assess the implementation outcomes acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility (Kien et al, 2018). We chose to translate the English versions of the measures AIM, IAM, and FIM (Weiner et al, 2017) into German as they are promising, reliable, valid and generic in nature and can therefore be applied in varying contexts (Finch et al, 2012).…”

Competences for implementation science: what trainees need to learn and where they learn it

“…Implementation science, "the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services and care" (Eccles and Mittman 2006, p. 1), has become a highly relevant topic in the health sciences. Clinical practice often considerably lags behind research findings, leading to poor health outcomes and an ineffective use of resources (Kien et al 2018). Therefore, numerous frameworks describe how the transfer of scientific knowledge to health practice and the implementation of evidence-based interventions can be carried out systematically (e.g., Damschroder et al 2009;Fixsen et al 2005;Proctor et al 2011).…”