What Went Wrong in eMedCare? Formative Evaluation of an IT Project in Primary Care in Two Rural Districts

Przysucha, Mareike; Peters, Lara; Büscher, Andreas; Schnellhammer, Martin; Hübner, Ursula

doi:10.3233/shti220807

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the NASSS framework having been designed for health technology innovations, there were a variety of health conditions for which innovations were implemented, including cardiovascular (n=10), mental health (n=9), general health promotion (n=9), cancer (n=5), and women's health (n=5), among others. Of the 57 included studies, 53 [12,28,30,61,73] the Netherlands 5 8.8 [37,47,48,53,71] Germany 2 3.5 [65,66] Thailand 1 1.8 [63] Brazil 1 1.8 [34] Denmark 1 1.8 [69] Canada 1 1.8 [32] Cambodia 1 1.8 [56] Multiple countries 3 5.3 [38,67,76] Conditions…”

Section: Rq1 Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review

Shin,

Hamovitch,

Gatov

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) framework (2017) was established as an evidence-based, theory-informed tool to predict and evaluate the success of implementing health and care technologies. While the NASSS is gaining popularity, its use has not been systematically described. Literature reviews on the applications of popular implementation frameworks such as RE-AIM and CFIR have enabled their advancement in the implementation science field. Similarly, we sought to advance the science of implementation and application of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) in research by exploring the application of the NASSS in the five years since its inception.ObjectiveWe aim to understand the characteristics of studies that used the NASSS, how it was used, and the lessons learned from its application.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We searched the following databases on December 20, 2022: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and LISTA. We used typologies and frameworks to characterize evidence to address our aim.ResultsThis review included 57 studies, which were a mix of qualitative (n=28), mixed/multi-methods (n=13), case studies (n=6), observational (n=3), experimental (n=3), and other designs (e.g., quality improvement) (n=4). The four most common types of digital applications being implemented were telemedicine/virtual care (n=24), personal health devices (n=10), digital interventions, such as internet Cognitive Behavioural Therapies (n=10), and knowledge generation applications (n=9). Studies used the NASSS to inform study design (n=9), data collection (n=35), analysis (n=41), data presentation (n=33), and interpretation (n=39). Most studies applied the NASSS retrospectively to implementation (n=33). The remainder applied the NASSS prospectively (n=15) or concurrently (n=8) with implementation. We also collated reported barriers and enablers to implementation. We found the most reported barriers fell within the Organization and Adopter System domains, and the most frequently reported enablers fell within the Value Proposition domain. Eighteen studies highlighted the NASSS as a valuable and practical resource, particularly for unravelling complexities, comprehending implementation context, understanding contextual relevance in implementing health technology, and recognizing the NASSS’ adaptable nature to cater to researchers’ requirements.ConclusionsMost studies used the NASSS retrospectively, which may be attributed to the framework’s novelty. However, this finding highlights the need for prospective and concurrent application of the NASSS within the implementation process. In addition, almost all included studies reported multiple domains as barriers and enablers to implementation, indicating that implementation is a highly complex process that requires careful preparation to ensure implementation success. Finally, we identified a need for better reporting when using the NASSS in implementation research to contribute to the collective knowledge in the field.

show abstract