Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study

Implementation Science

JoAnn E. Kirchner⁵  Enola K. Proctor³  Jeffrey L. Smith²  Matthew J. Chinman⁴  Laura J. Damschroder¹  Monica M. Matthieu²  Byron J. Powell⁶  Thomas J. Waltz¹ 

[1] Center for Clinical Management Research and Diabetes QUERI, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;Mental Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), HSR&D, Department of Veterans Affairs, Little Rock, AR, USA;Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA;RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA;Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

关键词: US Department of Veterans Affairs;    Mental health;    Implementation strategies;    Implementation research;    Concept mapping;   

Others  :  1225551
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0

 received in 2015-04-08, accepted in 2015-07-15,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Poor terminological consistency for core concepts in implementation science has been widely noted as an obstacle to effective meta-analyses. This inconsistency is also a barrier for those seeking guidance from the research literature when developing and planning implementation initiatives. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aims to address one area of terminological inconsistency: discrete implementation strategies involving one process or action used to support a practice change. The present report is on the second stage of the ERIC project that focuses on providing initial validation of the compilation of 73 implementation strategies that were identified in the first phase.

Findings

Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation science and clinical practice (N = 35). These key stakeholders used concept mapping sorting and rating activities to place the 73 implementation strategies into similar groups and to rate each strategy’s relative importance and feasibility. Multidimensional scaling analysis provided a quantitative representation of the relationships among the strategies, all but one of which were found to be conceptually distinct from the others. Hierarchical cluster analysis supported organizing the 73 strategies into 9 categories. The ratings data reflect those strategies identified as the most important and feasible.

Conclusions

This study provides initial validation of the implementation strategies within the ERIC compilation as being conceptually distinct. The categorization and strategy ratings of importance and feasibility may facilitate the search for, and selection of, strategies that are best suited for implementation efforts in a particular setting.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Waltz et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, Haynes RB, Straus S. A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci. 2010; 5:1-11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Hempel S, Rubenstein LV, Shanman RM, Foy R, Golder S, Danz M, Shekelle PG. Identifying quality improvement intervention publications: a comparison of electronic search strategies. Implement Sci. 2011; 6:1-10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, Straus SE. Search filters can find some but not all knowledge translation articles in MEDLINE: an analytic survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65:651-9.
• [4]Michie S, Fixsen DL, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP. Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implement Sci. 2009; 4:1-6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Mazza D, Bairstow P, Buchan H, Chakraborty SP, Van Hecke O, Grech C, Kunnamo I. Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification. Implement Sci. 2013; 8:1-10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013; 8:1-11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Colquhoun H, Leeman J, Michie S, Lokker C, Bragge P, Hempel S, McKibbon KA, Peters GY, Stevens KR, Wilson MG, Grimshaw J. Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. Implement Sci. 2014; 9:1-6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, Glass JE, York JL. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Med Care Res Rev. 2012; 69:123-57.
• [9]Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, Damschroder LJ, Kirchner JE. Expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study. Implement Sci. 2014; 9:1-12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, Kirchner JE. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015; 10:1-14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Kane M, Trochim WMK. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2007.
• [12]Concept Systems Global Max©. http://www. conceptsystems.com/content/view/the-concept-system.html webcite
• [13]Trochim WMK, Kane M. Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005; 17:187-91.
• [14]Rosas SR, Kane M. Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. Eval Program Plann. 2012; 35:236-45.