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 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/

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

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

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 priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for IR and describes a scoping review protocol to identify and map the extent to which IR has examined these priorities to date.Methods: Implementation Science is the leading journal for publishing IR and receives over 800 submissions annually. Thus, this scoping review will focus on IR published in Implementation Science between its inception in 2006 and 12/31/2019. The current scoping review and evidence map protocol has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey & O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. All research articles and short reports will be reviewed. 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 priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram, which integrates the four priority domains, three priority aims, and four priority testable hypotheses, to develop a map of the evidence (or lack thereof).Discussion: This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on one or more of IR’s priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of NAS-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3vhuj/

scholarly journals How a Nutritional Deficiency Became Treated with Fluoride

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 4361
Author(s):  
Philippe P. Hujoel
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Professional Organizations ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Causes Of Disease ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Health Experts

Ignoring evidence on causes of disease such as smoking can harm public health. This report explores how public health experts started to ignore evidence that pediatric vitamin D deficiencies are associated with dental caries. Historical analyses show that an organization of clinical specialists, the American Dental Association (ADA), initiated this view. The ADA was a world-leading organization and its governing bodies worked through political channels to make fluoride a global standard of care for a disease which at the time was viewed as an indicator of vitamin D deficiencies. The ADA scientific council was enlisted in this endeavor and authorized the statement saying that “claims for vitamin D as a factor in tooth decay are not acceptable”. This statement was ghost-written, the opposite of what the ADA scientific council had endorsed for 15 years, and the opposite of what the National Academy of Sciences concluded. Internal ADA documents are informative on the origin of this scientific conundrum; the ADA scientific council had ignored their scientific rules and was assisting ADA governing bodies in conflicts with the medical profession on advertising policies. The evidence presented here suggests that professional organizations of clinical specialists have the power to create standards of care which ignore key evidence and consequently can harm public health.

Aspirin Use and Reye Syndrome

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 79 (6) ◽  
pp. 1049-1050
Author(s):  
RALPH E. KAUFFMAN ◽  
ROBERT J. ROBERTS
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Service ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Environmental Toxins ◽  
Reye Syndrome ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Metabolic Defects ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Service Task

The search for causes of Reye syndrome has resulted in colorful, if not controversial, incrimination of numerous factors including influenza, varicella, environmental toxins, aflotoxin, inherited metabolic defects, and various medications. Attempts to associate salicylates with Reye syndrome date from the 1960s1-3; most of these reports lacked sufficient design, conduct, or controls to implicate or exclude aspirin as a risk factor. Since 1980, several epidemiologic studies4-6 renewed concern and controversy regarding the role of aspirin in Reye syndrome. As a result, a Public Health Service Task Force was formed which culminated in the Centers for Disease Control/National Academy of Sciences pilot study7 which was designed to address the problems and shortcomings identified in the previous efforts to examine the role of aspirin as a causal factor in Reye syndrome.

scholarly journals Alcohol use and alcohol-related harm in rural and remote communities: protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e036753
Author(s):  
Erik Loewen Friesen ◽  
Paul Kurdyak
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
Remote Communities ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Alcohol Related Harm ◽  
Related Harm

IntroductionAlcohol-related harm is a major public health concern and appears to be particularly problematic in rural and remote communities. Evidence from several countries has shown that the prevalence of harmful alcohol use and alcohol-attributable hospitalisations and emergency department visits are higher in rural and remote communities than in urban centres. The extents of this rural–urban disparity in alcohol-related harm as well as the factors that mediate it are poorly understood. The objective of this scoping review is to synthesise the international research on the factors that influence the prevalence or risk of alcohol-related harm in rural and remote communities. This will help to clarify the conceptual landscape of rural and remote alcohol research and identify the gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will access published literature through search strategies developed for Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Sociological Abstracts. There will be no date, country or language restrictions placed on the search. Title and abstract, followed by full-text screening, will be conducted by two independent reviewers to evaluate all identified articles against a set of prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data from selected articles will be extracted and compiled into a final manuscript that adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist guidelines.Ethics and disseminationThe results of this review will be helpful in guiding future research on rural and remote alcohol use and alcohol-related harm, which will inform more effective, evidence-based public health strategies to reduce alcohol-related harm in rural and remote communities. The results will be disseminated via field-specific conference presentations and peer-reviewed publication.

scholarly journals Implementation research approaches to promoting universal health coverage in Africa: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chukwudi A. Nnaji ◽  
Charles S. Wiysonge ◽  
Joseph C. Okeibunor ◽  
Thobile Malinga ◽  
Abdu A. Adamu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Universal Health Coverage ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Reference Lists ◽  
Political Support ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Hand Search ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Universal Health

Abstract Background Implementation research has emerged as part of evidence-based decision-making efforts to plug current gaps in the translation of research evidence into health policy and practice. While there has been a growing number of initiatives promoting the uptake of implementation research in Africa, its role and effectiveness remain unclear, particularly in the context of universal health coverage (UHC). Hence, this scoping review aimed to identify and characterise the use of implementation research initiatives for assessing UHC-related interventions or programmes in Africa. Methods The review protocol was developed based on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley, as enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched. The search also included a hand search of relevant grey literature and reference lists. Literature sources involving the application of implementation research in the context of UHC in Africa were eligible for inclusion. Results The database search yielded 2153 records. We identified 12 additional records from hand search of reference lists. After the removal of duplicates, we had 2051 unique records, of which 26 studies were included in the review. Implementation research was used within ten distinct UHC-related contexts, including HIV; maternal and child health; voluntary male medical circumcision; healthcare financing; immunisation; healthcare data quality; malaria diagnosis; primary healthcare quality improvement; surgery and typhoid fever control. The consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) was the most frequently used framework. Qualitative and mixed-methods study designs were the commonest methods used. Implementation research was mostly used to guide post-implementation evaluation of health programmes and the contextualisation of findings to improve future implementation outcomes. The most commonly reported contextual facilitators were political support, funding, sustained collaboration and effective programme leadership. Reported barriers included inadequate human and other resources; lack of incentives; perception of implementation as additional work burden; and socio-cultural barriers. Conclusions This review demonstrates that implementation research can be used to achieve UHC-related outcomes in Africa. It has identified important facilitators and barriers to the use of implementation research for promoting UHC in the region.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document