Building theories of knowledge translation interventions: Use the entire menu of constructs

Implementation Science

Kevin W Eva²  Jamie C Brehaut¹ 

[1] Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada;Centre for Health Education Scholarship, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E3, Canada

关键词: Education;    Cognitive psychology;    Domains;    Constructs;    Knowledge translation;    Audit and feedback;    Theory;   

Others  :  813865
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-7-114

 received in 2012-01-06, accepted in 2012-11-20,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

In the ongoing effort to develop and advance the science of knowledge translation (KT), an important question has emerged around how theory should inform the development of KT interventions.

Discussion

Efforts to employ theory to better understand and improve KT interventions have until recently mostly involved examining whether existing theories can be usefully applied to the KT context in question. In contrast to this general theory application approach, we propose a ‘menu of constructs’ approach, where individual constructs from any number of theories may be used to construct a new theory. By considering the entire menu of available constructs, rather than limiting choice to the broader level of theories, we can leverage knowledge from theories that would never on their own provide a complete picture of a KT intervention, but that nevertheless describe components or mechanisms relevant to it. We can also avoid being forced to adopt every construct from a particular theory in a one-size-fits-all manner, and instead tailor theory application efforts to the specifics of the situation. Using audit and feedback as an example KT intervention strategy, we describe a variety of constructs (two modes of reasoning, cognitive dissonance, feed forward, desirable difficulties and cognitive load, communities of practice, and adaptive expertise) from cognitive and educational psychology that make concrete suggestions about ways to improve this class of intervention.

Summary

The ‘menu of constructs’ notion suggests an approach whereby a wider range of theoretical constructs, including constructs from cognitive theories with scope that makes the immediate application to the new context challenging, may be employed to facilitate development of more effective KT interventions.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Brehaut and Eva; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Health research roadmap: creating innovative research for better health and health care. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/40490.html webcite
• [2]Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: National health expenditure data. https://www.cms.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata/ webcite
• [3]Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N: Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:107-112.
• [4]Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, et al.: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8:iii-72.
• [5]Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD: Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006, 2:CD000259.
• [6]Grimshaw J, Eccles MP, Greener J, MacLennan G, Ibbotson T, Kahan JP, et al.: Is the involvement of opinion leaders in the implementation of research findings a feasible strategy? Implement Sci 2006, 1:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Foy R, Eccles MP, Jamtvedt G, Young J, Grimshaw JM, Baker R: What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2005, 5:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Oxman A, Thomson M, Davis D, Haynes R: No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ 1995, 153:1423-1431.
• [9]Oxman A, Fretheim A, Flottorp S: The OFF theory of research utilization. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:117-120.
• [10]Fretheim A, Flottorp S, Oxman A: It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data: a response to Eccle's criticism of the OFF theory of research utilization. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:19-20.
• [11]Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N: Response to ‘The OFF theory of research utilization’. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:117-118.
• [12]Rycroft-Malone J: Theory and knowledge translation: setting some coordinates. Nurs Res 2007, 56:S78-S85.
• [13]Weber EU, Johnson EJ: Mindful judgment and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 2009, 60:53-85.
• [14]Bem S, Looren-de Jong H: Theoretical issues in psychology. 1997.
• [15]Godin G, Kok G: The theory of planned behaviour: A review of its applications to health behaviours. Am J Health Promot 1996, 11:87-98.
• [16]Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M: Improving patient care: the implementation of change in clinical practice. Toronto: Elsevier Limited; 2005.
• [17]Michie S, Johnston M, 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.
• [18]Michie S, Prestwich A: Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychol 2010, 29:1-8.
• [19]Colquhoun H, Brehaut JC, Eva KW, et al.: A systematic review of the explicit use of theory and theoretical constructs in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback. [Manuscript in preparation]
• [20]Buchanan DR: Beyond positivism: humanistic perspectives on theory and research in health education. Health Educ Res 1998, 13:439-450.
• [21]Conner M, Sparks P: Theory of planned behavior and health behavior. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005:170-222. [Predicting health behaviour research and practice with social cognition models. 2nd]
• [22]Ajzen I: The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991, 50:179-211.
• [23]Ross L, Nisbett RE: The person and the situation: perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991.
• [24]French SD, Green SE, O'Connor DA, McKenzie JE, Francis JJ, Michie S, et al.: Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci 2012, 7:38. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al.: Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 6:CD000259.
• [26]Kluger AN, DeNisi A: The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a mtea-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull 1996, 119:254-284.
• [27]Hysong SJ: Meta-analysis: audit and feedback features impact effectiveness on care quality. Med Care 2009, 47:356-363.
• [28]Gardner B, Whittington C, McAteer J, Eccles MP, Michie S: Using theory to synthesise evidence from behaviour change interventions: the example of audit and feedback. Soc Sci Med 2010, 70:1618-1625.
• [29]Carver C, Scheier MF: On the self-regulation of behaviour. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
• [30]Godin G, Belanger-Gravel A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J: Healthcare professionals' intentions and behaviors: A systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implement Sci 2008, 3:36. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Metcalfe J, Kornell N, Son LK: A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting. Eur J Cogn Psychol 2007, 19:743-768.
• [32]Francis J, Eccles M, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw J, Foy R, et al.: Constructing questionnaires based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour: manual for health services researchers. 2004.
• [33]Anderson JR: Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman & Company; 1995.
• [34]Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Johnston M, Steen N, Pitts N, Thomas R, et al.: Applying psychological theories to evidence-based clinical practice: Identifying factors predictive of managing upper respiratory tract infections without antibiotics. Implement Sci 2007, 2:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [35]Bonetti D, Pitts NB, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Johnston M, Steen N, et al.: Applying psychological theory to evidence-based clinical practice: identifying factors predictive of taking intra-oral radiographs. Soc Sci Med 2006, 63:1889-1899.
• [36]Foy R, Bamford C, Francis JJ, Johnston M, Lecouturier J, Eccles M, et al.: Which factors explain variation in intention to disclose a diagnosis of dementia?a theory-based survey of mental health professionals. Implement Sci 2007, 2:31. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Audet AM, Doty MM, Shamasdin J, Schoenbaum SC: Measure, learn, and improve: physicians' involvement in quality improvement. Health Aff (Millwood ) 2005, 24:843-853.
• [38]Kahneman D: A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 2003, 58:697-720.
• [39]Sloman S: The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 1996, 119:3-22.
• [40]Schmidt H, Norman G, Boshuizen H: A cognitive perspective on medical expertise: theory and implications. Acad Med 1990, 65:611-621.
• [41]Norman G, Brooks L, Cunnington J, Shali V, Marriott M, Regehr G: Expert-novice differences in the use of history and visual information from patients. Acad Med 1996, 71:S62-S64.
• [42]Sladek RM, Phillips PA, Bond MJ: Implementation science: a role for parallel dual processing models of reasoning? Implement Sci 2006, 1:1-8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [43]Brehaut JC, Hamm R, Majumdar S, Papa F, Lott A, Lang E: Cognitive and social issues in emergency medicine knowledge translation: a research agenda. Acad Emerg Med 2007, 14:984-990.
• [44]Eva KW: What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ 2005, 39:98-106.
• [45]Festinger L: A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1957.
• [46]Tavris C, Aronson E: Mistakes were made (but Not by Me): why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions and hurtful acts. Orlando, FL: Harcourt; 2007.
• [47]Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Mann K, et al.: Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: on the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2012, 17:15-26.
• [48]Bargh JA, Chartrand TL: The unbearable automaticity of being. Am Psychol 1999, 54:462-479.
• [49]Nisbett R, Wilson T: The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol 1977, 35:250-256.
• [50]Shute VJ: Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ Res 2008, 78:153-189.
• [51]Kluger AN, Van Dijk D: Feedback, the various tasks of the doctor, and the feedforward alternative. Med Educ 2010, 44:1166-1174.
• [52]Bjork RA, Linn MC: The science of learning and the learning of science: introducing desirable difficulties. APS Observer 2006, 19:39.
• [53]Eva KW: Diagnostic error in medical education: where wrongs can make rights. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009, 14(Suppl 1):71-81.
• [54]Bjork RA: Assessing our own competence: heuristics and illusions. Cambridge MA: MIT Press; 1999:435-459. [Attention and performance XVII: cognitive regulation of performance. Interaction of theory and application]
• [55]Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL III: Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ 2008, 42:959-966.
• [56]Guadagnoli M, Morin MP, Dubrowski A: The application of the challenge point framework in medical education. Med Educ 2012, 46:447-453.
• [57]Mayer RE: Multi-media learning. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
• [58]Mayer RE: Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ 2010, 44:543-549.
• [59]Issa N, Schuller M, Santacaterina S, Shapiro M, Wang E, Mayer RE, et al.: Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Med Educ 2011, 45:818-826.
• [60]Eccles M, Rousseau N, Higgins B, Thomas L: Evidence-based guideline on the primary care management of asthma. Fam Pract 2001, 18:223-229.
• [61]Hemminiki E, Teperi J, Tuominen K: Need for and influence or feedback from the finnish birth register to data providers. Qual Assur Health Care 1992, 4:133-139.
• [62]Hendryx MS, Fieselmann JF, Bock MJ, Wakefield DS, Helms CM, Bentler SE: Outreach education to improve quality of rural ICU care results of a randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998, 158:418-423.
• [63]Hillman AL, Ripley K, Goldfarb N, Nuamah I, Weiner J, Lusk E: Physician financial incentives and feedback: failure to increase cancer screening in Medicaid managed care. Am J Public Health 1998, 88:1699-1701.
• [64]Kafuko JM, Zirabamuzaale C, Bagena D: Rational drug use in rural health units of Uganda:effect of national standard treatment guidelines on rational drug use. 1st international conference on improving use of medications. 1999.
• [65]Kinsinger LS, Harris R, Qaqish B, Strecher V, Kaluzny A: Using an office system intervention to increase breast cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med 1998, 13:507-514.
• [66]Lave J, Wenger E: Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
• [67]Norman GR, Davis DA, Lamb S, Hanna E, Caulford P, Kaigas T: Competency assessment of primary care physicians as part of a peer review program. JAMA 1993, 270:1046-1051.
• [68]Mylopoulos M, Regehr G: Putting the expert together again. Med Educ 2011, 45:920-926.
• [69]Mylopoulos M, Woods NN: Having our cake and eating it too: seeking the best of both worlds in expertise research. Med Educ 2009, 43:406-413.
• [70]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
• [71]Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M: From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioral determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psychol 2008, 57:660-680.
• [72]Abraham C, Michie S: A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol 2008, 27:379-387.
• [73]Francis JJ, Stockton C, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Cuthbertson BH, Grimshaw JM, et al.: Evidence-based selection of theories for designing behaviour change interventions: using methods based on theoretical construct domains to understand clinicians' blood transfusion behaviour. Br J Health Psychol 2009, 14:625-646.
• [74]Islam R, Tinmouth AT, Francis JJ, et al.: A cross-country comparison of intensive care physicians' beliefs about their transfusion behaviour: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci 2012, 7:93. BioMed Central Full Text
• [75]Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R: The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011, 6:42. BioMed Central Full Text
• [76]Bandura A: Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health 1998, 13:623-649.
• [77]Grol RP, Bosch MC, Hulscher ME, Eccles MP, Wensing M: Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q 2007, 85:93-138.