A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework

Health Research Policy and Systems

Shalom I Benrimoj¹  Fernando Fernandez-Llimos²  Daniel Sabater-Hernández³  Joanna C Moullin¹ 

[1] Graduate School of Health, Pharmacy, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, Ultimo 2007, NSW, Australia;Institute for Medicines Research (iMed.UL), Department of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Avda. Prof. Gama Pinto, Lisbon, 1649-019, Portugal;Academic Centre in Pharmaceutical Care, Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Granada, Granada, 18071, Spain

关键词: Theory;    Systematic literature review;    Model;    Knowledge translation;    Implementation;    Framework;    Diffusion;   

Others  :  1170919
DOI  :  10.1186/s12961-015-0005-z

 received in 2014-10-23, accepted in 2015-02-19,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Implementation science and knowledge translation have developed across multiple disciplines with the common aim of bringing innovations to practice. Numerous implementation frameworks, models, and theories have been developed to target a diverse array of innovations. As such, it is plausible that not all frameworks include the full range of concepts now thought to be involved in implementation. Users face the decision of selecting a single or combining multiple implementation frameworks. To aid this decision, the aim of this review was to assess the comprehensiveness of existing frameworks.

Methods

A systematic search was undertaken in PubMed to identify implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare published from 2004 to May 2013. Additionally, titles and abstracts from Implementation Science journal and references from identified papers were reviewed. The orientation, type, and presence of stages and domains, along with the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of factors, strategies, and evaluations of implementation of included frameworks were analysed.

Results

Frameworks were assessed individually and grouped according to their targeted innovation. Frameworks for particular innovations had similar settings, end-users, and ‘type’ (descriptive, prescriptive, explanatory, or predictive). On the whole, frameworks were descriptive and explanatory more often than prescriptive and predictive. A small number of the reviewed frameworks covered an implementation concept(s) in detail, however, overall, there was limited degree and depth of analysis of implementation concepts. The core implementation concepts across the frameworks were collated to form a Generic Implementation Framework, which includes the process of implementation (often portrayed as a series of stages and/or steps), the innovation to be implemented, the context in which the implementation is to occur (divided into a range of domains), and influencing factors, strategies, and evaluations.

Conclusions

The selection of implementation framework(s) should be based not solely on the healthcare innovation to be implemented, but include other aspects of the framework’s orientation, e.g., the setting and end-user, as well as the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of the implementation concepts. The resulting generic structure provides researchers, policy-makers, health administrators, and practitioners a base that can be used as guidance for their implementation efforts.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Moullin et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008, 337:a1655.
• [2]Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E: Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: translating science to practice. Oxford University Press, New York; 2012.
• [3]Eccles M, Mittman B: Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci 2006, 1:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B: Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care 1998, 7:149-58.
• [5]Lomas J: Improving research dissemination and uptake in the health sector: beyond the sound of one hand clapping. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Hamilton, Ontario; 1997.
• [6]Rogers EM: Diffusion of innovations. 5th edition. Free Press, New York; 2003.
• [7]Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J: How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 2003, 81:221-48.
• [8]Klein KJ, Sorra JS: The Challenge of Innovation Implementation. Acad Manage Rev 1996, 21:1055-80.
• [9]Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F: Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network, Tampa, FL; 2005.
• [10]Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A: Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2005, 14:26-33.
• [11]Lomas J: Diffusion, dissemination, and implementation: who should do what? Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006, 703:226-37.
• [12]Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al.: Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006, 26:13-24.
• [13]Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009, 4:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Kreuter MW, Weaver NL: A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. J Public Health Manag Pract 2008, 14:117-23.
• [15]May C, Finch T: Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology 2009, 43:535-54.
• [16]Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581-629.
• [17]Flottorp S, Oxman A, Krause J, Musila N, Wensing M, Godycki-Cwirko M, et al.: A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci 2013, 8:35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S: Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci 2012, 7:37. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, et al.: Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 3:CD005470.
• [20]Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM: A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci 2010, 5:14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Scott S, Albrecht L, O’Leary K, Ball G, Hartling L, Hofmeyer A, et al.: Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implement Sci 2012, 7:70. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Ward V, House A, Hamer S: Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy 2009, 14:156-64.
• [23]Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I: Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implement Sci 2010, 5:91. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Wiltsey Stirman S, Kimberly J, Cook N, Calloway A, Castro F, Charns M: The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implement Sci 2012, 7:17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Wisdom J, Chor K, Hoagwood K, Horwitz S: Innovation adoption: a review of theories and constructs. Adm Policy Ment Health 2014, 41:480-502.
• [26]Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC: Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med 2012, 43:337-50.
• [27]Farley K, Thompson C, Hanbury A, Chambers D: Exploring the feasibility of conjoint analysis as a tool for prioritizing innovations for implementation. Implement Sci 2013, 8:56. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Flaspohler PD, Anderson-Butcher D, Wandersman A: Supporting implementation of expanded school mental health services: application of the interactive systems framework in Ohio. Adv Sch Ment Health Promot 2008, 1:38-48.
• [29]Kitson AL, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A: Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. Implement Sci 2008, 3:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Meyers DC, Durlak JA, Wandersman A: The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. Am J Community Psychol 2012, 50:462-80.
• [31]Rycroft-Malone J, Bucknall T: Models and frameworks for implementing evidence-based practice: linking evidence to action. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford; 2010.
• [32]Rubenstein-Montano B, Liebowitz J, Buchwalter J, McCaw D, Newman B, Rebeck K: A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decis Support Syst 2001, 31:5-16.
• [33]Aarons G, Hurlburt M, Horwitz S: Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011, 38:4-23.
• [34]Fixsen DL, Blase KA, Naoom SF, Wallace F: Core implementation components. Res Soc Work Pract 2009, 19:531-40.
• [35]Simpson DD, Flynn PM: Moving innovations into treatment: a stage-based approach to program change. J Subst Abuse Treat 2007, 33:111-20.
• [36]Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Chandler J, Hawkes C, Crichton N, Allen C, et al.: The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework. Implement Sci 2013, 8:28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Mendel P, Meredith LS, Schoenbaum M, Sherbourne CD, Wells KB: Interventions in organizational and community context: a framework for building evidence on dissemination and implementation in health services research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2008, 35:21-37.
• [38]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009, 6:e1000097.
• [39]Durlak JA, DuPre EP: Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol 2008, 41:327-50.
• [40]Johnson K, Hays C, Center H, Daley C: Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: a sustainability planning model. Eval Program Plann 2004, 27:135-49.
• [41]Scheirer MA, Dearing JW: An agenda for research on the sustainability of public health programs. Am J Public Health 2011, 101:2059-67.
• [42]Schell S, Luke D, Schooley M, Elliott M, Herbers S, Mueller N, et al.: Public health program capacity for sustainability: a new framework. Implement Sci 2013, 8:15. BioMed Central Full Text
• [43]Wandersman A, Duffy J, Flaspohler P, Noonan R, Lubell K, Stillman L, et al.: Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: the interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am J Community Psychol 2008, 41:171-81.
• [44]Racine DP: Reliable effectiveness: a theory on sustaining and replicating worthwhile innovations. Adm Policy Ment Health 2006, 33:356-87.
• [45]Ballard N: Factors associated with success and breakdown of shared governance. J Nurs Adm 2010, 40:411-6.
• [46]Bradley EH, Fund C: Translating research into practice: speeding the adoption of innovative health care programs. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2004, 724:1-12.
• [47]Helfrich CD, Weiner BJ, McKinney MM, Minasian L: Determinants of implementation effectiveness. Med Care Res Rev 2007, 64:279-303.
• [48]Joseph V, West RM, Shickle D, Keen J, Clamp S: Key challenges in the development and implementation of telehealth projects. J Telemed Telecare 2011, 17:71-7.
• [49]May C: Towards a general theory of implementation. Implement Sci 2013, 8:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [50]May C: Agency and implementation: understanding the embedding of healthcare innovations in practice. Soc Sci Med 2013, 78:26-33.
• [51]Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE: A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM). Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008, 34:228-43.
• [52]Grol R, Wensing M: What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust 2004, 180:S57.
• [53]Lehman WE, Simpson DD, Knight DK, Flynn PM: Integration of treatment innovation planning and implementation: strategic process models and organizational challenges. Psychol Addict Behav 2011, 25:252.
• [54]Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Needham DM: Translating evidence into practice: a model for large scale knowledge translation. BMJ 2008, 337:963-5.
• [55]Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, Hagedorn HJ: A guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci 2011, 6:99. BioMed Central Full Text
• [56]Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Network Technology Transfer Workgroup: Research to practice in addiction treatment: key terms and a field-driven model of technology transfer J Subst Abuse Treat 2011, 41:169-78.
• [57]Berta W, Teare GF, Gilbart E, Ginsburg LS, Lemieux-Charles L, Davis D, et al.: The contingencies of organizational learning in long-term care: factors that affect innovation adoption. Health Care Manage Rev 2005, 30:282-92.
• [58]Carey M, Buchan H, Sanson-Fisher R: The cycle of change: implementing best-evidence clinical practice. Int J Qual Health Care 2009, 21:37-43.
• [59]Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Palda VA, Lemieux-Charles L, Grimshaw JM: How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci 2011, 6:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [60]Hader JM, White R, Lewis S, Foreman JL, McDonald PW, Thompson LG: Doctors’ views of clinical practice guidelines: a qualitative exploration using innovation theory. J Eval Clin Pract 2007, 13:601-6.
• [61]Kontos PC, Poland BD: Mapping new theoretical and methodological terrain for knowledge translation: contributions from critical realism and the arts. Implement Sci 2009, 4:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [62]Baumbusch JL, Kirkham SR, Khan KB, McDonald H, Semeniuk P, Tan E, et al.: Pursuing common agendas: a collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings. Res Nurs Health 2008, 31:130-40.
• [63]Best A, Hiatt RA, Norman CD: Knowledge integration: conceptualizing communications in cancer control systems. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 71:319-27.
• [64]Edgar L, Herbert R, Lambert S, MacDonald JA, Dubois S, Latimer M: The joint venture model of knowledge utilization: a guide for change in nursing. Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont) 2006, 19:41-55.
• [65]Elwyn G, Taubert M, Kowalczuk J: Sticky knowledge: a possible model for investigating implementation in healthcare contexts. Implement Sci 2007, 2:44. BioMed Central Full Text
• [66]Landry R, Amara N, Pablos-Mendes A, Shademani R, Gold I: The knowledge-value chain: a conceptual framework for knowledge translation in health. Bull World Health Organ 2006, 84:597-602.
• [67]Latimer MA, Ritchie JA, Johnston CC: Individual nurse and organizational context considerations for better knowledge use in pain care. J Pediatr Nurs 2010, 25:274-81.
• [68]Palmer D, Kramlich D: An introduction to the multisystem model of knowledge integration and translation. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 2011, 34:29-38.
• [69]Gauthier N, Ellis K, Bol N, Stolee P: Beyond knowledge transfer: a model of knowledge integration in a clinical setting. Healthc Manage Forum 2005, 18:33-7.
• [70]MacRobert M: A leadership focus on evidence-based practice: tools for successful implementation. Prof Case Manag 2008, 13:97-101.
• [71]Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E, Gallagher-Ford L, Stillwell SB: Evidence-based practice, step by step: sustaining evidence-based practice through organizational policies and an innovative model. Am J Nurs 2011, 111:57-60.
• [72]Olade RA: Strategic collaborative model for evidence-based nursing practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2004, 1:60-8.
• [73]Reavy K, Tavernier S: Nurses reclaiming ownership of their practice: implementation of an evidence-based practice model and process. J Contin Educ Nur 2008, 39:166-72.
• [74]Vratny A, Shriver D: A conceptual model for growing evidence-based practice. Nurs Adm Q 2007, 31:162-70.
• [75]Glisson C, Schoenwald SK: The ARC organizational and community intervention strategy for implementing evidence-based children’s mental health treatments. Ment Health Serv Res 2005, 7:243-59.
• [76]Kilbourne AM, Neumann MS, Pincus HA, Bauer MS, Stall R: Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care: application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implement Sci 2007, 2:42. BioMed Central Full Text
• [77]Vega MY: The CHANGE approach to capacity-building assistance. AIDS Educ Prev 2009, 21:137-51.
• [78]Chambers D, Glasgow R, Stange K: The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci 2013, 8:117. BioMed Central Full Text
• [79]Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999, 89:1322-7.
• [80]Green L, Kreuter M: The PRECEDE–PROCEED model. In Health promotion planning: an educational approach. 3rd edition. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View (CA); 1999:32-43.
• [81]Lomas J: Retailing research: increasing the role of evidence in clinical services for childbirth. Milbank Q 1993, 71:439-75.