http://www.implementationscience.com The most accessed research articles published by Implementation Science 2012-01-31T00:00:00Z Background: Change management experts have emphasized the importance of establishing organizational readiness for change and recommended various strategies for creating it. Although the advice seems reasonable, the scientific basis for it is limited. Unlike individual readiness for change, organizational readiness for change has not been subject to extensive theoretical development or empirical study. In this article, I conceptually define organizational readiness for change and develop a theory of its determinants and outcomes. I focus on the organizational level of analysis because many promising approaches to improving healthcare delivery entail collective behavior change in the form of systems redesign--that is, multiple, simultaneous changes in staffing, work flow, decision making, communication, and reward systems.DiscussionOrganizational readiness for change is a multi-level, multi-faceted construct. As an organization-level construct, readiness for change refers to organizational members' shared resolve to implement a change (change commitment) and shared belief in their collective capability to do so (change efficacy). Organizational readiness for change varies as a function of how much organizational members value the change and how favorably they appraise three key determinants of implementation capability: task demands, resource availability, and situational factors. When organizational readiness for change is high, organizational members are more likely to initiate change, exert greater effort, exhibit greater persistence, and display more cooperative behavior. The result is more effective implementation.SummaryThe theory described in this article treats organizational readiness as a shared psychological state in which organizational members feel committed to implementing an organizational change and confident in their collective abilities to do so. This way of thinking about organizational readiness is best suited for examining organizational changes where collective behavior change is necessary in order to effectively implement the change and, in some instances, for the change to produce anticipated benefits. Testing the theory would require further measurement development and careful sampling decisions. The theory offers a means of reconciling the structural and psychological views of organizational readiness found in the literature. Further, the theory suggests the possibility that the strategies that change management experts recommend are equifinal. That is, there is no 'one best way' to increase organizational readiness for change. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/4/1/67 Bryan Weiner Implementation Science 2009, null:67 2009-10-19T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67 /content/figures/1748-5908-4-67-toc.gif Implementation Science 1748-5908 ${item.volume} 67 2009-10-19T00:00:00Z XML Background: Improving the design and implementation of evidence-based practice depends on successful behaviour change interventions. This requires an appropriate method for characterising interventions and linking them to an analysis of the targeted behaviour. There exists a plethora of frameworks of behaviour change interventions, but it is not clear how well they serve this purpose. This paper evaluates these frameworks, and develops and evaluates a new framework aimed at overcoming their limitations. Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases and consultation with behaviour change experts were used to identify frameworks of behaviour change interventions. These were evaluated according to three criteria: comprehensiveness, coherence, and a clear link to an overarching model of behaviour. A new framework was developed to meet these criteria. The reliability with which it could be applied was examined in two domains of behaviour change: tobacco control and obesity. Results: Nineteen frameworks were identified covering nine intervention functions and seven policy categories that could enable those interventions. None of the frameworks reviewed covered the full range of intervention functions or policies, and only a minority met the criteria of coherence or linkage to a model of behaviour. At the centre of a proposed new framework is a 'behaviour system' involving three essential conditions: capability, opportunity, and motivation (what we term the 'COM-B system'). This forms the hub of a 'behaviour change wheel' (BCW) around which are positioned the nine intervention functions aimed at addressing deficits in one or more of these conditions; around this are placed seven categories of policy that could enable those interventions to occur. The BCW was used reliably to characterise interventions within the English Department of Health's 2010 tobacco control strategy and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence's guidance on reducing obesity. Conclusions: Interventions and policies to change behaviour can be usefully characterised by means of a BCW comprising: a 'behaviour system' at the hub, encircled by intervention functions and then by policy categories. Research is needed to establish how far the BCW can lead to more efficient design of effective interventions. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/42 Susan Michie Maartje van Stralen Robert West Implementation Science 2011, null:42 2011-04-23T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 /content/figures/1748-5908-6-42-toc.gif Implementation Science 1748-5908 ${item.volume} 42 2011-04-23T00:00:00Z XML Background: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together groups of healthcare professionals to work in a structured manner to improve the quality of healthcare delivery within particular domains. We explored which characteristics of the composition, participation, functioning and organization of these collaboratives related to changes in the healthcare for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, or schizophrenia. Methods: We studied three QICs involving 29 quality improvement (QI) teams representing a number of mental healthcare organizations in the Netherlands. The aims of the three QICs were the implementation of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in the domains of anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia, respectively. We used eight performance indicators to assess the impact of the QI teams on self-reported patient outcomes and a number of process of care outcomes for 1.346 patients. The QI team members completed a questionnaire on the characteristics of the composition, participation in a national program, functioning and organizational context for their teams. It was expected that an association would be found between these team characteristics and the quality of care for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia. Results: No consistent patterns of association emerged. Theory-based factors did not perform better than practice-based factors. However, QI teams that received support from their management and both active and inspirational team leadership showed better results. Rather surprisingly, a lower average level of education among the team members was associated with better results although less consistently than the management and leadership characteristics. Team views with regard to the QI goals of the team and attitudes towards multidisciplinary practice guidelines did not correlate with team success. Conclusions: No general conclusions about the impact of the characteristics of QI teams on the quality of healthcare can be drawn, but support of the management and active, inspirational team leadership appear to be important. Not only patient outcomes but also the performance indicators of monitoring and screening/assessment showed improvement in many but not all of the QI teams with such characteristics. More studies are needed to identify factors associated with the impact of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in mental healthcare. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/1 Marleen Versteeg Miranda Laurant Gerdien Franx Annelies Jacobs Michel Wensing Implementation Science 2012, null:1 2012-01-09T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-1 /content/figures/1748-5908-7-1-toc.gif Implementation Science 1748-5908 ${item.volume} 1 2012-01-09T00:00:00Z PDF Background: In the United Kingdom, clinical guidelines recommend that services for depression and anxiety should be structured around a stepped care model, where patients receive treatment at different 'steps,' with the intensity of treatment (i.e., the amount and type) increasing at each step if they fail to benefit at previous steps. There are very limited data available on the implementation of this model, particularly on the intensity of psychological treatment at each step. Our objective was to describe patient pathways through stepped care services and the impact of this on patient flow and management. Methods: We recorded service design features of four National Health Service sites implementing stepped care (e.g., the types of treatments available and their links with other treatments), together with the actual treatments received by individual patients and their transitions between different treatment steps. We computed the proportions of patients accessing, receiving, and transiting between the various steps and mapped these proportions visually to illustrate patient movement. Results: We collected throughput data on 7,698 patients referred. Patient pathways were highly complex and very variable within and between sites. The ratio of low (e.g., self-help) to high-intensity (e.g., cognitive behaviour therapy) treatments delivered varied between sites from 22:1, through 2.1:1, 1.4:1 to 0.5:1. The numbers of patients allocated directly to high-intensity treatment varied from 3% to 45%. Rates of stepping up from low-intensity treatment to high-intensity treatment were less than 10%. Conclusions: When services attempt to implement the recommendation for stepped care in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, there were significant differences in implementation and consequent high levels of variation in patient pathways. Evaluations driven by the principles of implementation science (such as targeted planning, defined implementation strategies, and clear activity specification around service organisation) are required to improve evidence on the most effective, efficient, and acceptable stepped care systems. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/3 David Richards Peter Bower Christina Pagel Alice Weaver Martin Utley John Cape Steve Pilling Karina Lovell Simon Gilbody Judy Leibowitz Lilian Owens Roger Paxton Sue Hennessy Angela Simpson Steve Gallivan David Tomson Christos Vasilakis Implementation Science 2012, null:3 2012-01-16T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-3 /content/figures/1748-5908-7-3-toc.gif Implementation Science 1748-5908 ${item.volume} 3 2012-01-16T00:00:00Z PDF Background: Limited research exists on researchers' knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) in the eastern Mediterranean region (EMR). This multi-country study explores researchers' views and experiences regarding the role of health systems and policy research evidence in health policymaking in the EMR, including the factors that influence health policymaking, barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence, and the factors that increase researchers' engagement in KTE. Methods: Researchers who published health systems and policy relevant research in 12 countries in the EMR (Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) were surveyed. Descriptive analysis and Linear Mixed Regression Models were performed for quantitative sections and the simple thematic analysis approach was used for open-ended questions. Results: A total of 238 researchers were asked to complete the survey (response rate 56%). Researchers indicated transferring results to other researchers (67.2%) and policymakers in the government (40.5%). Less than one-quarter stated that they produced policy briefs (14.5%), disseminated messages that specified possible actions (24.4%), interacted with policymakers and stakeholders in priority-setting (16%), and involved them in their research (19.8%). Insufficient policy dialogue opportunities and collaboration between researchers and policymakers and stakeholders (67.9%), practical constraints to implementation (66%), non-receptive policy environment (61.3%), and politically sensitive findings (57.7%) hindered the use of evidence. Factors that increase researchers' engagement in KTE activities in the region were associated with involving policymakers and stakeholders at various stages such as priority-setting exercises and provision of technical assistance. Conclusions: Researchers in the EMR recognize the importance of using health systems evidence in health policymaking. Potential strategies to improve the use of research evidence emphasize two-way communication between researchers and policymakers. Findings are critical for the upcoming World Health Report 2012, which will emphasize the significance of conducting and translating health research to inform health policies. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/2 Fadi El-Jardali John Lavis Nour Ataya Diana Jamal Implementation Science 2012, null:2 2012-01-11T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-2 /content/figures/1748-5908-7-2-toc.gif Implementation Science 1748-5908 ${item.volume} 2 2012-01-11T00:00:00Z PDF Background: The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified.DiscussionThis being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation.Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place.In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally.SummaryThe paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches.We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/1 Alison Kitson Jo Rycroft-Malone Gill Harvey Brendan McCormack Kate Seers Angie Titchen Implementation Science 2008, null:1 2008-01-07T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-1 /content/figures/1748-5908-3-1-toc.gif Implementation Science 1748-5908 ${item.volume} 1 2008-01-07T00:00:00Z XML Background: Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods: We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results: The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion: The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/4/1/50 Laura Damschroder David Aron Rosalind Keith Susan Kirsh Jeff Alexander Julie Lowery Implementation Science 2009, null:50 2009-08-07T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 /content/figures/1748-5908-4-50-toc.gif Implementation Science 1748-5908 ${item.volume} 50 2009-08-07T00:00:00Z XML Background: Since 2004, 'stepped-care models' have been adopted in several international evidence-based clinical guidelines to guide clinicians in the organisation of depression care. To enhance the adoption of this new treatment approach, a Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) was initiated in the Netherlands. Methods: Alongside the QIC, an intervention study using a controlled before-and-after design was performed. Part of the study was a process evaluation, utilizing semi-structured group interviews, to provide insight into the perceptions of the participating clinicians on the implementation of stepped care for depression into their daily routines. Participants were primary care clinicians, specialist clinicians, and other healthcare staff from eight regions in the Netherlands. Analysis was supported by the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Results: The introduction of a stepped-care model for depression to primary care teams within the context of a depression QIC was generally well received by participating clinicians. All three elements of the proposed stepped-care model (patient differentiation, stepped-care treatment, and outcome monitoring), were translated and introduced locally. Clinicians reported changes in terms of learning how to differentiate between patient groups and different levels of care, changing antidepressant prescribing routines as a consequence of having a broader treatment package to offer to their patients, and better working relationships with patients and colleagues. A complex range of factors influenced the implementation process. Facilitating factors were the stepped-care model itself, the structured team meetings (part of the QIC method), and the positive reaction from patients to stepped care. The differing views of depression and depression care within multidisciplinary health teams, lack of resources, and poor information systems hindered the rapid introduction of the stepped-care model. The NPT constructs 'coherence' and 'cognitive participation' appeared to be crucial drivers in the initial stage of the process. Conclusions: Stepped care for depression is received positively in primary care. While it is difficult for the implementation of a full stepped-care approach to occur within a short time frame, clinicians can make progress towards achieving a stepped-care approach, particularly within the context of a QIC. Creating a shared understanding within multidisciplinary teams of what constitutes depression, reaching a consensus about the content of depression care, and the division of tasks are important when addressing the implementation process. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/8 Gerdien Franx Matthijs Oud Jacomine De Lange Michel Wensing Richard Grol Implementation Science 2012, null:8 2012-01-31T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-8 /content/figures/1748-5908-7-8-toc.gif Implementation Science 1748-5908 ${item.volume} 8 2012-01-31T00:00:00Z PDF Background: Globally, healthcare systems are attempting to optimize quality of care. This challenge has resulted in the development of implementation science or knowledge translation (KT) and the resulting need to build capacity in both the science and practice of KT.FindingsWe are attempting to meet these challenges through the creation of a national training initiative in KT. We have identified core competencies in this field and have developed a series of educational courses and materials for three training streams. We report the outline for this approach and the progress to date. Conclusions: We have prepared a strategy to develop, implement, and evaluate a national training initiative to build capacity in the science and practice of KT. Ultimately through this initiative, we hope to meet the capacity demand for KT researchers and practitioners in Canada that will lead to improved care and a strengthened healthcare system. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/127 Sharon Straus Melissa Brouwers David Johnson John Lavis France Legare Sumit Majumdar K McKibbon Anne Sales Dawn Stacey Gail Klein Jeremy Grimshaw KT Canada Strategic Training Initiative in Health Research Stihr Implementation Science 2011, null:127 2011-12-09T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-127 /content/figures/1748-5908-6-127-toc.gif Implementation Science 1748-5908 ${item.volume} 127 2011-12-09T00:00:00Z PDF Background: In the past forty years, many gains have been made in our understanding of the concept of research utilization. While numerous studies exist on professional nurses' use of research in practice, no attempt has been made to systematically evaluate and synthesize this body of literature with respect to the extent to which nurses use research in their clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and analyze the available evidence related to the extent to which nurses use research findings in practice. Methods: This study was a systematic review of published and grey literature. The search strategy included 13 online bibliographic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, HAPI, Web of Science, SCOPUS, OCLC Papers First, OCLC WorldCat, ABI Inform, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts. The inclusion criteria consisted of primary research reports that assess professional nurses' use of research in practice, written in the English or Scandinavian languages. Extent of research use was determined by assigning research use scores reported in each article to one of four quartiles: low, moderate-low, moderate-high, or high. Results: Following removal of duplicate citations, a total of 12,418 titles were identified through database searches, of which 133 articles were retrieved. Of the articles retrieved, 55 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The 55 final reports included cross-sectional/survey (n = 51) and quasi-experimental (n = 4) designs. A sensitivity analysis, comparing findings from all reports with those rated moderate (moderate-weak and moderate-strong) and strong quality, did not show significant differences. In a majority of the articles identified (n = 38, 69%), nurses reported moderate-high research use. Conclusions: According to this review, nurses' reported use of research is moderate-high and has remained relatively consistent over time until the early 2000's. This finding, however, may paint an overly optimistic picture of the extent to which nurses use research in their practice given the methodological problems inherent in the majority of studies. There is a clear need for the development of standard measures of research use and robust well-designed studies examining nurses' use of research and its impact on patient outcomes. The relatively unchanged self-reports of moderate-high research use by nurses is troubling given that over 40 years have elapsed since the first studies in this review were conducted and the increasing emphasis in the past 15 years on evidence-based practice. More troubling is the absence of studies in which attempts are made to assess the effects of varying levels of research use on patient outcomes. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/21 Janet Squires Alison Hutchinson Anne-Marie Bostrom Hannah O'Rourke Sandra Cobban Carole Estabrooks Implementation Science 2011, null:21 2011-03-17T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-21 /content/figures/1748-5908-6-21-toc.gif Implementation Science 1748-5908 ${item.volume} 21 2011-03-17T00:00:00Z XML