Implementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers. Theoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks). This article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited “how-to” support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.

/pdf/making-sense-of-implementation-theories-models-and-9m1o7axeoi.pdf

Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

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. This 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. The 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.

/pdf/evaluating-the-successful-implementation-of-evidence-into-40dds6y1ue.pdf

Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARIHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges

The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care.

Despite calls over several decades for theory development, there remains no overarching knowledge-translation theory. However, a range of models and theoretical perspectives focused on narrower and related areas have been available for some time. We provide an overview of selected perspectives that we believe are particularly useful for developing testable and useful knowledge-translation interventions. In addition, we discuss adjuvant theories necessary to complement these perspectives. We draw from organizational innovation, health, and social sciences literature to illustrate the similarities and differences of various theoretical perspectives related to the knowledge-translation field. A variety of theoretical perspectives useful to knowledge translation exist. They are often spread across disciplinary boundaries, making them difficult to locate and use. Poor definitional clarity, discipline-specific terminology, and implicit assumptions often hinder the use of complementary perspectives. Health care environments are complex, and assessing the setting prior to selecting a theory should be the first step in knowledge-translation initiatives. Finding a fit between setting (context) and theory is important for knowledge-translation initiatives to succeed. Because one theory will not fit all contexts, it is helpful to understand and use several different theories. Although there are often barriers associated with combining theories from different disciplines, such obstacles can be overcome, and to do so will increase the likelihood that knowledge-translation initiatives will succeed.

/pdf/a-guide-to-knowledge-translation-theory-5cqgx8r7qk.pdf

A guide to knowledge translation theory.

Updating the Stetler Model of research utilization to facilitate evidence-based practice.

Clinical indicators of infant irritability.

Purpose:To describe the nursing interventions used most frequently during an acute hospital stay for three patient groups.

Methods:Analysis of nursing interventions documented by use of the Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC) contained in an electronic clinical database obtained from 33 general inpatient units in one large health care facility from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2002. The numbers of hospitalizations for each sample in the analyses were: 1,435 in the heart failure group, 567 in the hip fracture procedures group, and 11,756 in the fall prevention group.

Findings:The mean number of interventions done at least once during a single hospitalization ranged from 18 to 22 for the three samples. For the total number of patient hospitalizations for each group, the number of interventions ranged from 94 for the hip fracture procedures sample to 182 for the fall prevention sample. Seven interventions were done twice or more a day in at least 20% of the sample in all three groups. Patterns of interventions during the first 6 days of care differed by intervention and sample, indicating that nursing care was individualized.

Conclusions:The results indicate the types of information that can result from analysis of actual clinical nursing data documented with standardized language (Nursing Interventions Classification) in a nursing information system. The knowledge of nursing interventions used in clinical practice has major implications for staff development and nursing education. The information is also useful in making staffing decisions for different types of patient populations.

Describing use of nursing interventions for three groups of patients.

Cost of care for seniors hospitalized for hip fracture and related procedures.

A computer information system, which can provide cost-saving measures useful in adequately allocating nursing staff in the face of decreasing patient stays, increasing patient admissions and discharges, and the unexpected transfers surrounding busy nursing units, is explored.

Ginette Budreau

Papers

The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care.

Clinical indicators of infant irritability.

Describing use of nursing interventions for three groups of patients.

Cost of care for seniors hospitalized for hip fracture and related procedures.

Analyzing fluctuating unit census for timely staffing intervention