scholarly journals A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Callie Walsh-Bailey ◽  
Edward Tsai ◽  
Rachel G. Tabak ◽  
Alexandra B. Morshed ◽  
Wynne E. Norton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
Model Development ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Public Health Programs ◽  
Broad Array ◽  
Implementation Studies

Abstract Background Reduction or elimination of inappropriate, ineffective, or potentially harmful healthcare services and public health programs can help to ensure limited resources are used effectively. Frameworks and models (FM) are valuable tools in conceptualizing and guiding the study of de-implementation. This scoping review sought to identify and characterize FM that can be used to study de-implementation as a phenomenon and identify gaps in the literature to inform future model development and application for research. Methods We searched nine databases and eleven journals from a broad array of disciplines (e.g., healthcare, public health, public policy) for de-implementation studies published between 1990 and June 2020. Two raters independently screened titles and abstracts, and then a pair of raters screened all full text records. We extracted information related to setting, discipline, study design, methodology, and FM characteristics from included studies. Results The final search yielded 1860 records, from which we screened 126 full text records. We extracted data from 27 articles containing 27 unique FM. Most FM (n = 21) were applicable to two or more levels of the Socio-Ecological Framework, and most commonly assessed constructs were at the organization level (n = 18). Most FM (n = 18) depicted a linear relationship between constructs, few depicted a more complex structure, such as a nested or cyclical relationship. Thirteen studies applied FM in empirical investigations of de-implementation, while 14 articles were commentary or review papers that included FM. Conclusion De-implementation is a process studied in a broad array of disciplines, yet implementation science has thus far been limited in the integration of learnings from other fields. This review offers an overview of visual representations of FM that implementation researchers and practitioners can use to inform their work. Additional work is needed to test and refine existing FM and to determine the extent to which FM developed in one setting or for a particular topic can be applied to other contexts. Given the extensive availability of FM in implementation science, we suggest researchers build from existing FM rather than recreating novel FM. Registration Not registered

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R. Garner ◽  
Sheila V. Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue that the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram. Methods The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Our sample will include IR published in leading implementation-focused journals (i.e., Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications, and Implementation Research and Practice) between their inception and December 2020. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey and O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date. Discussion This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/3vhuj/

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R Garner ◽  
Sheila Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background: The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram..Methods: The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Our sample will include IR published in leading implementation-focused journals (i.e., Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications, and Implementation Research and Practice) between their inception and December 2020. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey & O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to-date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date.Discussion: This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3vhuj/

scholarly journals A scoping review of the use of ethnographic approaches in implementation research and recommendations for reporting

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 263348952199274
Author(s):  
Alex K Gertner ◽  
Joshua Franklin ◽  
Isabel Roth ◽  
Gracelyn H Cruden ◽  
Amber D Haley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Text Analysis ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Observational Methods ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Ethnographic Methods ◽  
Academic Journal ◽  
Complex Interactions

Background: Researchers have argued for the value of ethnographic approaches to implementation science (IS). The contested meanings of ethnography pose challenges and possibilities to its use in IS. The goal of this study was to identify sources of commonality and variation, and to distill a set of recommendations for reporting ethnographic approaches in IS. Methods: We included in our scoping review English-language academic journal articles meeting two criteria: (1) IS articles in the healthcare field and (2) articles that described their approach as ethnographic. In March 2019, we implemented our search criteria in four academic databases and one academic journal. Abstracts were screened for inclusion by at least two authors. We iteratively develop a codebook for full-text analysis and double-coded included articles. We summarized the findings and developed reporting recommendations through discussion. Results: Of the 210 articles whose abstracts were screened, 73 were included in full-text analysis. The number of articles increased in recent years. Ethnographic approaches were used within a wide variety of theoretical approaches and research designs. Articles primarily described using interviews and observational methods as part of their ethnographic approaches, though numerous other methods were also employed. The most cited rationales for using ethnographic approaches were to capture context-specific phenomena, understand insiders’ perspective, and study complex interactions. In reporting on ethnographic approaches, we recommend that researchers provide information on researcher training and position, reflect on researchers’ positionality, describe observational methods in detail, and report results from all the methods used. Conclusion: The number of IS studies using ethnography has increased in recent years. Ethnography holds great potential for contributing further to IS, particularly to studying implementation strategy mechanisms and understanding complex adaptive systems. Plain language summary: Researchers have proposed that ethnographic methods may be valuable to implementation research and practice. Ethnographic approaches have their roots in the field of anthropology, but they are now used in many fields. These approaches often involve a researcher spending time in “real-world” settings, conducting interviews and observation to understand a group of people. That said, researchers disagree on the meaning of ethnography, which presents a challenge to its use in implementation science (IS). We searched for articles in the field of IS that described their methods as ethnographic. We then reviewed the articles, looking for similarities and differences in how and why ethnographic approaches were used. Many of these articles said they used ethnographic methods because they were interested in issues like context, research participants’ views, and complex interactions. We found a large amount of variation in how ethnographic methods were used. We developed recommendations for describing ethnographic methods in a way that readers can clearly understand. We also made several observations of the value ethnographic approaches can bring to IS. Ethnographic methods may be especially useful to studying unplanned and unexpected changes that take place during implementation. These recommendations and observations could be helpful to implementation researchers wishing to use ethnographic methods.

scholarly journals Applications of digital health for public health responses to COVID-19: a systematic scoping review of artificial intelligence, telehealth and related technologies

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinesh Visva Gunasekeran ◽  
Rachel Marjorie Wei Wen Tseng ◽  
Yih-Chung Tham ◽  
Tien Yin Wong
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Real World ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Medical Needs ◽  
Wide Range

AbstractThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare services, faced with the twin challenges in acutely meeting the medical needs of patients with COVID-19 while continuing essential services for non-COVID-19 illnesses. The need to re-invent, re-organize and transform healthcare and co-ordinate clinical services at a population level is urgent as countries that controlled initial outbreaks start to experience resurgences. A wide range of digital health solutions have been proposed, although the extent of successful real-world applications of these technologies is unclear. This study aims to review applications of artificial intelligence (AI), telehealth, and other relevant digital health solutions for public health responses in the healthcare operating environment amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic scoping review was performed to identify potentially relevant reports. Key findings include a large body of evidence for various clinical and operational applications of telehealth (40.1%, n = 99/247). Although a large quantity of reports investigated applications of artificial intelligence (AI) (44.9%, n = 111/247) and big data analytics (36.0%, n = 89/247), weaknesses in study design limit generalizability and translation, highlighting the need for more pragmatic real-world investigations. There were also few descriptions of applications for the internet of things (IoT) (2.0%, n = 5/247), digital platforms for communication (DC) (10.9%, 27/247), digital solutions for data management (DM) (1.6%, n = 4/247), and digital structural screening (DS) (8.9%, n = 22/247); representing gaps and opportunities for digital public health. Finally, the performance of digital health technology for operational applications related to population surveillance and points of entry have not been adequately evaluated.

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R Garner ◽  
Sheila Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background: The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram..Methods: The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Because Implementation Science is the leading journal for publishing IR and receives over 800 submissions annually, our sample will include IR (specifically, original research articles and short reports) published in Implementation Science between its inception in 2006 and December 2019. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey & O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to-date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date.Discussion: This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3vhuj/

What are digital public health interventions? A scoping review of existing digital technologies and internet-based Interventions to maintain and improve the population's health (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Maaß ◽  
Chen-Chia Pan ◽  
Merle Freye
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Information And Communication Technologies ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Scoping Reviews

BACKGROUND Rapid developments and implementation of digital technologies in public health domains throughout the last decades changed the landscape of health delivery and disease prevention globally. A growing number of countries introduce interventions like online consultations, electronic health records, or telemedicine to their health systems to improve their populations' health and make access to health care more accessible. Despite multiple definitions for digital public health and the development of different digital interventions, no study has analyzed whether the used technologies fit the definition and the core characteristics of digital public health interventions. A scoping review is therefore needed to explore the extent of the literature on this topic. OBJECTIVE The main aim of this scoping review is to outline real-world digital public health interventions on all levels of health care, prevention, and health. The second objective will be the mapping of reported intervention characteristics. These will include non-technical elements and the technical features of an intervention. METHODS We searched for relevant literature in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All original study types (observational studies, experimental trials, qualitative studies, and health-economic analyses), as well as governmental reports, books, book chapters, or conference papers, were included when the evaluation and description of a digital health intervention was their primary intervention component. Two authors screened the articles independently in three stages (title, abstract, and full-text). Two independent authors will also conduct the data charting. We will report our results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. RESULTS The search in all three databases was conducted on 19th February 2021 and produced 18,363 results. We identified a total of 13,383 papers after deduplication. As of August 2021, the abstract screening stage is about to be complete, and we expect the full-text screening to start in September 2021. We assume to complete the review in January 2022. CONCLUSIONS To our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review to fill the theoretical definitions of digital public health with concrete interventions and their characteristics. Our scoping review will display the landscape of worldwide existing digital public health interventions that use information- and communication technologies. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in early 2022 and used as a blueprint for the development of future digital public health interventions.

Risk Attitudes and Behavior Among Norwegian Adolescents

2005 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilde Iversen ◽  
Torbjørn Rundmo ◽  
Hroar Klempe
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Traffic Safety ◽  
Behavior Modification ◽  
Health Programs ◽  
Risk Attitudes ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Public Health Programs ◽  
The Core ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Attitudes And Behavior

Abstract. The core aim of the present study is to compare the effects of a safety campaign and a behavior modification program on traffic safety. As is the case in community-based health promotion, the present study's approach of the attitude campaign was based on active participation of the group of recipients. One of the reasons why many attitude campaigns conducted previously have failed may be that they have been society-based public health programs. Both the interventions were carried out simultaneously among students aged 18-19 years in two Norwegian high schools (n = 342). At the first high school the intervention was behavior modification, at the second school a community-based attitude campaign was carried out. Baseline and posttest data on attitudes toward traffic safety and self-reported risk behavior were collected. The results showed that there was a significant total effect of the interventions although the effect depended on the type of intervention. There were significant differences in attitude and behavior only in the sample where the attitude campaign was carried out and no significant changes were found in the group of recipients of behavior modification.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document