Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Clinical Practice

Cosby, Jarold

doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.016824

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Change in clinical practice is driven by a number of factors [2,3]. Available data, although being one of them, may not be the important factor [4].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiotherapy in rectal cancer: Is it time for change? A qualitative analysis of the national questionnaire survey of members of ACPGBI on preliminary CRO7 results

Srinivasaiah

Monson

2008

Colorectal Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In conclusion, change in practice is a slow and complex process influenced not only by data and scientific evidence, but also by a combination of other factors. Some of them are Clinical decision making, EBP/Education, Research Translation and Organizational factors with Infrastructure/Resources. Some of the above-mentioned conclusions will aid the policy makers and the opinion leaders in the National Health Service (NHS).

show abstract

“…Change in clinical practice is driven by a number of factors [2,3]. Available data, although being one of them, may not be the important factor [4].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiotherapy in rectal cancer: Is it time for change? A qualitative analysis of the national questionnaire survey of members of ACPGBI on preliminary CRO7 results

Srinivasaiah

Monson

2008

Colorectal Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas effectiveness studies focus a priori on generalizability and test the effect of interventions on clinical outcomes [32], hybrid study designs can be used to test intervention effects while examining the process of implementation (type 1), simultaneously test clinical interventions and assess the feasibility or utility of implementation interventions or strategies (type 2), or test implementation interventions or strategies while observing clinical outcomes (type 3) [31]. Non-hybrid implementation studies focus a priori on the adoption or uptake of clinical interventions in the real world [33].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation science and stigma reduction interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Kemp

Jarrett

Kwon

et al. 2019

BMC Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions. Methods PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). Results A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven. Conclusion Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1237-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Transcripts of the focus groups were analyzed following the template analysis approach as developed by King et al (2019), entailing a thematical analysis using a constructed coding template. The template was based on the research question and the theoretical concepts of organizational implementation management (Cosby, 2006;Eid & Quinn, 2017). Four broad code categories formed the code manual: knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, and organizational infrastructure (see Appendix 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of SBAR as a structured communication tool in the pediatric non-acute care setting: bridge or barrier for interprofessional collaboration?

Coolen¹,

Engbers

Draaisma³

et al. 2020

Journal of Interprofessional Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Clinical Practice

Cited by 21 publications

References 4 publications

Radiotherapy in rectal cancer: Is it time for change? A qualitative analysis of the national questionnaire survey of members of ACPGBI on preliminary CRO7 results

Radiotherapy in rectal cancer: Is it time for change? A qualitative analysis of the national questionnaire survey of members of ACPGBI on preliminary CRO7 results

Implementation science and stigma reduction interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

The use of SBAR as a structured communication tool in the pediatric non-acute care setting: bridge or barrier for interprofessional collaboration?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About