Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol

Authors: Janet E. Squires, Ian D. Graham, Alison M. Hutchinson, Susan Michie, Jill J. Francis, Anne Sales, Jamie Brehaut, Janet Curran, Noah Ivers, John Lavis, Stefanie Linklater, Shannon Fenton, Thomas Noseworthy, Jocelyn Vine, Jeremy M. Grimshaw

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is growing recognition that “context” can and does modify the effects of implementation interventions aimed at increasing healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what exactly comprises “context” is lacking. The purpose of this research program is to develop, refine, and validate a framework that identifies the key domains of context (and their features) that can facilitate or hinder (1) healthcare professionals’ use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions.

Methods/design

A multi-phased investigation of context using mixed methods will be conducted. The first phase is a concept analysis of context using the Walker and Avant method to distinguish between the defining and irrelevant attributes of context. This phase will result in a preliminary framework for context that identifies its important domains and their features according to the published literature. The second phase is a secondary analysis of qualitative data from 13 studies of interviews with 312 healthcare professionals on the perceived barriers and enablers to their application of research evidence in clinical practice. These data will be analyzed inductively using constant comparative analysis. For the third phase, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with key health system stakeholders and change agents to elicit their knowledge and beliefs about the contextual features that influence the effectiveness of implementation interventions and healthcare professionals’ use of evidence in clinical practice. Results from all three phases will be synthesized using a triangulation protocol to refine the context framework drawn from the concept analysis. The framework will then be assessed for content validity using an iterative Delphi approach with international experts (researchers and health system stakeholders/change agents).

Discussion

This research program will result in a framework that identifies the domains of context and their features that can facilitate or hinder: (1) healthcare professionals’ use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions. The framework will increase the conceptual clarity of the term “context” for advancing implementation science, improving healthcare professionals’ use of evidence in clinical practice, and providing greater understanding of what interventions are likely to be effective in which contexts.
Literature
1.
Lang ES, Wyer PC, Haynes RB. Knowledge translation: closing the evidence-to-practice gap. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49:355–63.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Lauer S, Skarlatos S. Translational research for cardiovascular diseases at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: moving from bench to bedside and from bedside to community. Circulation. 2010;121:929–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2635–45.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook R. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 2003;76:517–63.CrossRef
5.
Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001;39:II46–54.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Fogarty International Center. Frequently asked questions about implementation science. Bethesda MD: National Institutes of Health; 2015. 9-8-2015.
7.
Backer TE. Knowledge utilization: the third wave. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization. 1991;12:225–40.
8.
Landry R, Lamari M, Amara N. Climbing the ladder of research utilization: evidence from social science research. Sci Commun. 2001;22:396–422.CrossRef
9.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovation in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Millbank Q. 2004;82:581–629.CrossRef
10.
Rich R, Oh C. The utilization of policy research. In: Nagel S, editor. Encyclopedia of policy studies. 2nd ed. New York: M. Dekker; 1994. p. 69–92.
11.
Dogherty EJ, Harrison MB, Graham ID. Facilitation as a role and process in achieving evidence-based practice in nursing: a focused review of concept and meaning. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2010;7:76–89.PubMed
12.
Kimberly J, Cook J. Organizational measurement and the implementation of innovations in mental health services. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008;35:11–20.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85:729–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Squires JE, Estabrooks CA, O’Rourke HM, Gustavsson P, Newburn-Cook C, Wallin L. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2011;6:83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Squires J, Estabrooks C, Gustavsson P, Wallin L. Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: a systematic review update. Implement Sci. 2011;6:1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Squires JE, Hutchinson AM, Bostrom A-M, O’Rourke HM, Cobban SJ, Estabrooks CA. To what extent do nurses use research in clinical practice? A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2011;6:21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Glaser EM, Abelson HH, Garrison KN. Putting knowledge to Use: facilitating the diffusion of knowledge and the implementation of planned change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1983.
18.
Ovretveit J. Understanding the conditions for improvement: research to discover which context influences affect improvement success. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:i18–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
May C, Finch T, Mair F, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M, et al. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
French B. Contextual factors influencing research use in nursing. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2005;2:172–83.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Rycroft-Malone J. The PARIHS framework–A framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004;19:297–304.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Allport GW. The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. 1954.
23.
Hogg W, Lemelin J, Graham ID, Grimshaw J, Martin C, Moore L, et al. Improving prevention in primary care: evaluating the effectiveness of outreach facilitation. Fam Pract. 2008;25:40–8.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Lemelin J, Hogg W, Baskerville N. Evidence to action: a tailored multifaceted approach to changing family physician practice patterns and improving preventive care. CMAJ. 2001;164:757–63.PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Shojania K, Jennings A, Mayhew A, Ramsay C, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. The effects on on-screen, point of care computer reminders on process and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;8(3):CD001096.
26.
The Health Foundation. Lining Up: How do improvement programmes work? London: The Health Foundation; 2013.
27.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
28.
Squires JE, Estabrooks CA, O’Rourke HM, Gustavsson P, Newburn-Cook CV, Wallin L. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2011;6:83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
Kitson A, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, McCormack BS, Titchen A. Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. 2008. p. 3.
31.
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.CrossRefPubMed
32.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
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 Health Care. 2005;14:26–33.CrossRef
35.
McNulty T, Ferlie E. Reengineering health care: the complexities of organizational transformation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.
36.
Waltz CF, Strickland O, Lenz E. Measurement in nursing and health research. New York: Springer Pub; 2005.
37.
Squires JE, Graham ID, Hutchinson AM, Linklater S, Brehaut JC, Curran J, et al. Understanding context in knowledge translation: a concept analysis study protocol. J Adv Nurs. 2014;71(5):1146–55.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Avant KC. The Wilson method of concept analysis. In: Rodgers BL, Knafl KA, editors. Concept development in nursing. Foundations, techniques and applications. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company; 2000.
39.
Corti L, Thompson P. Secondary analysis of archive data. In: Searle C, Gobo G, Gubrium JF, editors. Qualitative research practice. London: Sage; 2004. p. 327–43.
40.
Corti L, Foster J, Thompson P. The need for a qualitative data archival policy. Qual Health Res. 1996;6:135–9.CrossRef
41.
42.
Heaton J. Secondary analysis of qualitative data: a review of the literature. ESRC research report R000222918. 2000.
43.
Fishbein ME. Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1967.
44.
45.
Hewitt-Taylor J. Use of constant comparative analysis in qualitative research. Nurs Stand. 2001;15:39–42.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine; 1967.
47.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
48.
Farmer T, Robinson T, Elliott S, Eyles J. Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res. 2006;16:377.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Sackman H. Delphi technique. Lexington: Lexington Books; 1975.
50.
McKenna HP. The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing. J Adv Nurs. 1994;19:1221–5.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information and Management. 2004;42:15–29.CrossRef
52.
Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T. Determinants of innovation within healthcare organizations. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004;16:107–23.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Bond S, Bond J. A Delphi study of clinical nursing research priorities. J Adv Nurs. 1982;7:565–75.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Broome ME, Woodring B, Von O’Connor S. Research priorities for the nursing of children and their families: a Delphi study. J Pediatr Nurs. 1996;11:281–7.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Schmidt K, Montgomery LA, Bruene D, Kenney M. Determining research priorities in pediatric nursing: a Delphi study. J Pediatr Nurs. 1997;12:201–7.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Sleep J. Establishing priorities for research: report of a Delphi survey. BJM. 1999;3:323–31.
57.
Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, Chen L. The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:151–69.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Cook JV, Dickinson HO, Eccles MP. Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: an observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:160.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Raine K, Sanderson C, Hutchings A, Carter S, Larkin K, Black N. An experimental study of determinants of group judgements in clinical guideline development. Lancet. 2004;364:429–37.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333:417–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol
Authors
Janet E. Squires
Ian D. Graham
Alison M. Hutchinson
Susan Michie
Jill J. Francis
Anne Sales
Jamie Brehaut
Janet Curran
Noah Ivers
John Lavis
Stefanie Linklater
Shannon Fenton
Thomas Noseworthy
Jocelyn Vine
Jeremy M. Grimshaw
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0325-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue

Short report

Research funders’ roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders

Study protocol

Advancing implementation science through measure development and evaluation: a study protocol

Research

Evidence-informed policy formulation and implementation: a comparative case study of two national policies for improving health and social care in Sweden

Research

Implementation of clinical guidelines on diabetes and hypertension in urban Mongolia: a qualitative study of primary care providers’ perspectives and experiences

Research

Guidelines for the use of survivorship care plans: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument

Research

Using realist review to inform intervention development: methodological illustration and conceptual platform for collaborative care in offender mental health