“There is nothing so practical as a good theory”: a pragmatic guide for selecting theoretical approaches for implementation projects

Lynch, Elizabeth; Mudge, Alison; Knowles, Sarah; Kitson, Alison; Hunter, Sarah C.; Harvey, Gill

doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3671-z

Cited by 131 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An alternative use of PARIHS in empirical studies involved focusing on one of the three PARIHS elements (n = 17) and investigating them in greater depth, most notably context (n = 10) (e.g., [155,232]) and facilitation (n = 7) (e.g., [307,312]). A total of 25 opinion/theoretical articles [144,351,[359][360][361][366][367][368][369][370][371][372][373][374][375][376][377][378][379][380][381][382][383][384][385] reported using the PARIHS framework in some other way, including a discussion about PARIHS as part of presenting a general overview of theories and frameworks to inform implementation (e.g., [369,376,378,384]), using PARIHS to augment, develop, or evaluate other implementation models and frameworks (e.g., [318,359,367,374,382]), and informing education and learning and teaching initiatives [144,372]. Empirical review articles (n = 11) included reviews of implementation frameworks [3,313,…”

Section: The Application Of Parihs In Any Other Waymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice—a citation analysis of the literature

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was developed two decades ago and conceptualizes successful implementation (SI) as a function (f) of the evidence (E) nature and type, context (C) quality, and the facilitation (F), [SI = f (E,C,F)]. Despite a growing number of citations of theoretical frameworks including PARIHS, details of how theoretical frameworks are used remains largely unknown. This review aimed to enhance the understanding of the breadth and depth of the use of the PARIHS framework. Methods: This citation analysis commenced from four core articles representing the key stages of the framework's development. The citation search was performed in Web of Science and Scopus. After exclusion, we undertook an initial assessment aimed to identify articles using PARIHS and not only referencing any of the core articles. To assess this, all articles were read in full. Further data extraction included capturing information about where (country/ countries and setting/s) PARIHS had been used, as well as categorizing how the framework was applied. Also, strengths and weaknesses, as well as efforts to validate the framework, were explored in detail. Results: The citation search yielded 1613 articles. After applying exclusion criteria, 1475 articles were read in full, and the initial assessment yielded a total of 367 articles reported to have used the PARIHS framework. These articles were included for data extraction. The framework had been used in a variety of settings and in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. With regard to types of use, 32% used PARIHS in planning and delivering an intervention, 50% in data analysis, 55% in the evaluation of study findings, and/or 37% in any other way. Further analysis showed that its actual application was frequently partial and generally not well elaborated. Conclusions: In line with previous citation analysis of the use of theoretical frameworks in implementation science, we also found a rather superficial description of the use of PARIHS. Thus, we propose the development and adoption of reporting guidelines on how framework(s) are used in implementation studies, with the expectation that this will enhance the maturity of implementation science.

show abstract

Section: The Application Of Parihs In Any Other Waymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Limitations of the PARIHS framework included: ▪ Poor operationalization of key terms leading to difficulties in understanding and an overlap of elements and sub-elements (e.g., [165,285,376]).…”

Section: The Application Of Parihs In Any Other Waymentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice—a citation analysis of the literature

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As part of a preliminary framework development process intended to summarize and categorise the factor statements [29], raters made initial attempts at organizing the different factors into categories. After discussion yielded a mutually agreed upon set of categories that were thought to be largely mutually exclusive and potentially useful in thinking about how to design model studies, two coders (TH and JB) independently assigned each factor to a category; discussion resolved any conflicts.…”

Section: Data Analysis and Framework Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

When piloting health services interventions, what predicts real world behaviours? A systematic concept mapping review

Hayes

Hudek

Graham

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Modeling studies to inform the design of complex health services interventions often involves elements that differ from the intervention's ultimate real-world use. These "hypothetical" elements include pilot participants, materials, and settings. Understanding the conditions under which studies with "hypothetical" elements can yield valid results would greatly help advance health services research. Our objectives are: 1) to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify factors affecting the relationship between hypothetical decisions and real-world behaviours, and 2) to summarise and organize these factors into a preliminary framework. Methods: We conducted an electronic database search using PsycINFO and Medline on November 30th, 2015, updated March 7th, 2019. We also conducted a supplemental snowball search on December 9th 2015 and a reverse citation search using Scopus and Web of Science. Studies were eligible to be included in this review if they clearly addressed the consistency between some type of hypothetical decision and a corresponding real decision or behaviour. Two reviewers extracted data using a standardized data collection form developed through an iterative consensus-based process. We extracted basic study information and data about each study's research area, design, and research question. Quotations from the articles were extracted and summarized into standardized factor statements. Results: Of the 2444 articles that were screened, 68 articles were included in the review. The articles identified 27 factors that we grouped into 4 categories: decision maker factors, cognitive factors, task factors, and matching factors. Conclusions: We have summarized a large number of factors that may be relevant when considering whether hypothetical health services pilot work can be expected to yield results that are consistent with real-world behaviours. Our descriptive framework can serve as the basis for organizing future work exploring which factors are most relevant when seeking to develop complex health services interventions.

show abstract

“…Despite a growing interest in the appropriate selection and use of implementation theories, models and frameworks [7][8][9][10][11], it can be difficult to sift through and make sense of the various options availableespecially when most are used in practice only once or with limited justification [2,12]. For instance, participants in an implementation practice training course [13] reported that they struggled to identify and select suitable theories, models or frameworks to guide their work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks: a qualitative study to inform the development of a decision support tool

Strifler

Barnsley

Hillmer

et al. 2020

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to inform a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool. Methods: We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-four individuals participated in the study. Categories of barriers/facilitators, to inform tool development, included characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied.

show abstract

“There is nothing so practical as a good theory”: a pragmatic guide for selecting theoretical approaches for implementation projects

Cited by 131 publications

References 32 publications

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice—a citation analysis of the literature

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice—a citation analysis of the literature

When piloting health services interventions, what predicts real world behaviours? A systematic concept mapping review

Identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks: a qualitative study to inform the development of a decision support tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About