scholarly journals A Systematic Review of External Validity in Pediatric Integrated Primary Care Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 1039-1052
Author(s):  
Alicia Callejo-Black ◽  
David V Wagner ◽  
Krishnapriya Ramanujam ◽  
Ann Jeline Manabat ◽  
Sarah Mastel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Psychological Symptoms ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Integrated Primary Care ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Adoption And Implementation ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Science ◽  
Internal And External Validity

Abstract Objective We used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to conduct a systematic review of external validity reporting in integrated primary care (IPC) interventions for mental health concerns. Methods We searched Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, and relevant literature to identify publications from 1998 to 2018 reporting on open, randomized, or quasi-randomized trials of IPC interventions that targeted child (ages 0–18 years) psychological symptoms. For each publication, we extracted the information reported in each RE-AIM domain and calculated the proportion of the total studies reviewed. Results Thirty-nine publications describing 25 studies were included in the review. Publications rarely reported some indicators of external validity, including the representativeness of participants (12%), rate of adoption clinics or providers (16%), cost of implementation (8%), or evidence of maintenance (16%). Few studies reported on key pragmatic factors such as cost or organizational change processes related to implementation and maintenance. Strengths of some studies included comparisons of multiple active treatments, use of tailorable interventions, and implementation in “real world” settings. Conclusions Although IPC interventions appear efficacious under research conditions, there are significant knowledge gaps regarding the degree to which they reach and engage target recipients, what factors impact adoption and implementation of IPC interventions by clinicians, how fidelity can be maintained over time, and cost-effectiveness. Pediatric IPC researchers should embrace dissemination and implementation science methods to balance internal and external validity concerns moving forward.

Diffusion of Innovations

2021 ◽  
pp. 610-638
Author(s):  
James W. Dearing
Keyword(s):  
External Validity ◽  
Diffusion Of Innovations ◽  
Change Processes ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Rapid Rise ◽  
Diffusion Study ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Science ◽  
Implementation Of Innovations

The main concepts of the diffusion of innovations represent a hybrid change research and practice paradigm that blends ideas that can now be found in life cycle, evolutionary, and teleological theories of social change. This chapter discusses why the paradigm developed in the ways that it did, including the shortcomings of this approach, especially for studying the role of organizations in change processes. The chapter also examines the rapid rise of dissemination and implementation science as conducted by health services and public health researchers and how those new literatures are related to diffusion. This paradigmatic evolution from descriptive and explanatory studies to intervention research utilizing diffusion concepts is a theme of this chapter, with emphases on organizational implementation of innovations, inter-organizational diffusion, external validity of innovations and how a recognition of the agency of adopters can reshape diffusion study.

Integrated primary care: A systematic review of program characteristics.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew P. Martin ◽  
Mark B. White ◽  
Jennifer L. Hodgson ◽  
Angela L. Lamson ◽  
Thomas G. Irons
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Integrated Primary Care ◽  
Program Characteristics

What is the State of the Science on Physical Activity Interventions for Family Caregivers? A Systematic Review and RE-AIM Evaluation

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. 578-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen A. Cuthbert ◽  
Kathryn King-Shier ◽  
Dean Ruether ◽  
Dianne M. Tapp ◽  
S. Nicole Culos-Reed
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Family Caregivers ◽  
Psychological Health ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
The State ◽  
Caregiver Health ◽  
State Of The Science ◽  
Internal And External Validity

Background:Family caregivers are an important health care resource and represent a significant proportion of Canadian and US populations. Family caregivers suffer physical and psychological health problems because of being in the caregiver role. Interventions to support caregiver health, including physical activity (PA), are slow to be investigated and translated into practice.Purpose:To examine the evidence for PA interventions in caregivers and determine factors hampering the uptake of this evidence into practice.Methods:A systematic review and evaluation of internal and external validity using the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework was conducted. Randomized controlled trials or pretest/posttest studies of PA interventions were included.Results:Fourteen studies were published between 1997 and 2015. Methodological quality of studies and risk of bias was variable. External validity criteria were often not reported. Mean reporting levels were 1) reach, 53%; 2) efficacy/effectiveness, 73%; 3) adoption, 18%; 4) implementation, 48%; and 5) maintenance, 2%.Conclusions:The lack of reporting of components of internal and external validity hinders the integration of caregiver PA interventions into clinical or community settings. Researchers should focus on standardized outcomes, accepted reporting criteria, and balancing factors of internal and external validity, to advance the state of the science.

scholarly journals Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nishat Bhuiyan ◽  
Pritika Singh ◽  
Samantha M. Harden ◽  
Scherezade K. Mama
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rural Health ◽  
Classification System ◽  
External Validity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Population Census ◽  
Physical Activity Interventions ◽  
Internal And External Validity ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Background Previous reviews of rural physical activity interventions were focused on intervention effectiveness and had reported overall mixed findings. The purpose of this systematic review was to apply the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the extent to which rural physical activity interventions in the U.S. have reported on dimensions of internal and external validity and to offer suggestions for future physical activity interventions for rural U.S. populations. Methods Pubmed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, PAIS, and Web of Science were searched through February 2019 to identify physical activity intervention studies conducted in rural regions in the U.S. with adult populations. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of articles were reviewed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction from included articles included a summary of study details, rural classification system used, and the presence or absence of a total 61 RE-AIM indicators, including reach (n = 13), efficacy/effectiveness (n = 10), adoption (n = 21), implementation (n = 9), and maintenance (n = 8). Results A total of 40 full-text articles representing 29 unique studies were included. Classifications of rurality included self-statements by authors (n = 19, 65.5%), population/census-based definitions (n = 3, 10.3%), Rural Urban Continuum Codes (n = 3, 10.3%), Rural Urban Commuting Area codes (n = 2, 6.9%), the 2014 Alabama Rural Health Association classification system (n = 1, 3.4%) and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget classification system (n = 1, 3.4%). Individual studies reported between 14.8 to 52.5% of total RE-AIM indicators. Studies reported 15.4 to 84.6% indicators for reach; 20.0 to 70.0% indicators for efficacy/effectiveness; 4.8 to 47.6% indicators for adoption; 11.1 to 88.9% indicators for implementation; and 0 to 25.0% indicators for maintenance. Conclusions We found an overall poor reporting of components related to external validity, which hinders the generalizability of intervention findings, and a lack of consistency in the definition of rurality. Future research should focus on balancing factors of internal and external validity, and should aim to develop a greater understanding of how rurality influences health and behavior to provide contextual knowledge needed to advance the translation of physical activity interventions into practice in rural communities and reduce rural health disparities. Trial registration The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019116308.

scholarly journals Bayesian factor analysis in primary care: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Zhang ◽  
Tibor Schuster
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Care Family ◽  
Bayesian Factor ◽  
Bayesian Factor Analysis

Abstract Background: Bayesian factor analysis allows for efficient use of preliminary data and information that corresponds to the increasing needs of questionnaire construct validation in primary care research. This systematic review will summarise evidence on the current use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care.Methods: We will adopt a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant literature (research studies in primary care) indexed in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. The search strategy will include terms (and synonyms) for Bayesian statistics, factor analysis and primary care. We will conduct forward and backward searches manually on the references of articles that meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria to further identify eligible studies. Multiple reviewers will conduct data extraction independently. The analyses will include descriptive synthesis summarizing features about the use and reporting of the respective Bayesian factor analysis approach.Discussion: This systematic review will provide a bird view of the current use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care and provide recommendations for its proper future use in primary care and beyond. Systematic review registration : PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018114978 Keywords: Bayesian, factor analysis, primary care, family medicine

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document