The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, or PARIHS framework, was first published in 1998. Since this time, work has been ongoing to further develop, refine and test it. Widely used as an organising or conceptual framework to help both explain and predict why the implementation of evidence into practice is or is not successful, PARIHS was one of the first frameworks to make explicit the multi-dimensional and complex nature of implementation as well as highlighting the central importance of context. Several critiques of the framework have also pointed out its limitations and suggested areas for improvement. Building on the published critiques and a number of empirical studies, this paper introduces a revised version of the framework, called the integrated or i-PARIHS framework. The theoretical antecedents of the framework are described as well as outlining the revised and new elements, notably, the revision of how evidence is described; how the individual and teams are incorporated; and how context is further delineated. We describe how the framework can be operationalised and draw on case study data to demonstrate the preliminary testing of the face and content validity of the revised framework. This paper is presented for deliberation and discussion within the implementation science community. Responding to a series of critiques and helpful feedback on the utility of the original PARIHS framework, we seek feedback on the proposed improvements to the framework. We believe that the i-PARIHS framework creates a more integrated approach to understand the theoretical complexity from which implementation science draws its propositions and working hypotheses; that the new framework is more coherent and comprehensive and at the same time maintains it intuitive appeal; and that the models of facilitation described enable its more effective operationalisation.

/pdf/parihs-revisited-from-heuristic-to-integrated-framework-for-2u3c8qgn46.pdf

PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice

Background
While maternal, infant and under-five child mortality rates in developing countries have declined significantly in the past two to three decades, newborn mortality rates have reduced much more slowly. While it is recognised that almost half of the newborn deaths can be prevented by scaling up evidence-based available interventions such as tetanus toxoid immunisation to mothers; clean and skilled care at delivery; newborn resuscitation; exclusive breastfeeding; clean umbilical cord care; management of infections in newborns, many require facility based and outreach services. It has also been stated that a significant proportion of these mortalities and morbidities could also be potentially addressed by developing community-based packages interventions which should also be supplemented by developing and strengthening linkages with the local health systems. Some of the recent community-based studies of interventions targeting women of reproductive age have shown variable impacts on maternal outcomes and hence it is uncertain if these strategies have consistent benefit across the continuum of maternal and newborn care.
The objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness of community-based intervention packages in reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality; and improving neonatal outcomes.

/pdf/community-based-intervention-packages-for-reducing-maternal-3qa2rmi564.pdf

Community‐based intervention packages for reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality and improving neonatal outcomes

Background
Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.

Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community.

Objectives
To assess the effects of face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on immunisation uptake and parental knowledge.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to July 2012); EMBASE + Embase Classic (OvidSP) (1947 to July 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to July 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2012); Global Health (CAB) (1910 to July 2012); Global Health Library (WHO) (searched July 2012); Google Scholar (searched September 2012), ISI Web of Science (searched September 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles. We searched for ongoing trials in The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched August 2012) and for grey literature in The Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (searched August 2012). We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language or date restrictions.

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs evaluating the effects of face to face interventions delivered to individual parents or groups of parents to inform or educate about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face to face intervention. Early childhood vaccines are all recommended routine childhood vaccines outlined by the World Health Organization, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) which is delivered to adolescents.

Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently reviewed database search results for inclusion. Grey literature searches were conducted and reviewed by a single author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information.

Main results
We included six RCTs and one cluster RCT involving a total of 2978 participants. Three studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries and four were conducted in high-income countries. The cluster RCT did not contribute usable data to the review. The interventions comprised a mix of single-session and multi-session strategies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low and the studies were at moderate risk of bias overall. All these trials compared face to face interventions directed to individual parents with control.

The three studies assessing the effect of a single-session intervention on immunisation status could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. The overall result is uncertain because the individual study results ranged from no evidence of effect to a significant increase in immunisation.

Two studies assessed the effect of a multi-session intervention on immunisation status. These studies were also not pooled due to heterogeneity and the result was very uncertain, ranging from a non-significant decrease in immunisation to no evidence of effect.

The two studies assessing the effect of a face to face intervention on knowledge or understanding of vaccination were very uncertain and were not pooled as data from one study were skewed. However, neither study showed evidence of an effect on knowledge scores in the intervention group. Only one study measured the cost of a case management intervention. The estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care.

The review also considered the following secondary outcomes: intention to vaccinate child, parent experience of intervention, and adverse effects. No adverse effects related to the intervention were measured by any of the included studies, and there were no data on the other outcomes of interest.

Authors' conclusions
The limited evidence available is low quality and suggests that face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about childhood vaccination have little to no impact on immunisation status, or knowledge or understanding of vaccination. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the cost of implementing the intervention, parent intention to vaccinate, parent experience of the intervention, or adverse effects. Given the apparently limited effect of such interventions, it may be feasible and appropriate to incorporate communication about vaccination into a healthcare encounter, rather than conduct it as a separate activity.

Face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

Early neonatal death (ENND), defined as the death of a newborn between zero and seven days after birth, represents 73% of all postnatal deaths worldwide. Despite a 50% reduction in childhood mortality, reduction of ENND has significantly lagged behind other Millennium Developmental Goal achievements and is a growing contributor to overall mortality in children aged <5 years. The etiology of ENND is closely related to the level of a country's industrialization. Hence, prematurity and congenital anomalies are the leading causes in high-income countries. Furthermore, sudden unexpected early neonatal deaths (SUEND) and collapse have only recently been identified as relevant and often preventable causes of death. Concomitantly, perinatal-related events such as asphyxia and infections are extremely relevant in Africa, South East Asia, and Latin America and, together with prematurity, are the principal contributors to ENND. In high-income countries, according to current research evidence, survival may be improved by applying antenatal and perinatal therapies and immediate newborn resuscitation, as well as by centralizing at-risk deliveries to centers with appropriate expertise available around the clock. In addition, resources should be allocated to the close surveillance of newborn infants, especially during the first hours of life. Many of the conditions leading to ENND in low-income countries are preventable with relatively easy and cost-effective interventions such as contraception, vaccination of pregnant women, hygienic delivery at a hospital, training health care workers in resuscitation practices, simplified algorithms that allow for early detection of perinatal infections, and early initiation of breastfeeding and skin-to-skin care. The future is promising. As initiatives undertaken in previous decades have led to substantial reduction in childhood mortality, it is expected that new initiatives targeting the perinatal/neonatal periods are bound to reduce ENND and provide these babies with a better future.

Early neonatal death: A challenge worldwide.

Background
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits for all pregnant women. Almost half of pregnant women worldwide, and especially in developing countries do not receive this amount of care. Poor attendance of ANC is associated with delivery of low birthweight babies and more neonatal deaths. ANC may include education on nutrition, potential problems with pregnancy or childbirth, child care and prevention or detection of disease during pregnancy.

This review focused on community-based interventions and health systems-related interventions.

Objectives
To assess the effects of health system and community interventions for improving coverage of antenatal care and other perinatal health outcomes.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Trials of any interventions to improve ANC coverage were eligible for inclusion. Trials were also eligible if they targeted specific and related outcomes, such as maternal or perinatal death, but also reported ANC coverage.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

Main results
We included 34 trials involving approximately 400,000 women. Some trials tested community-based interventions to improve uptake of antenatal care (media campaigns, education or financial incentives for pregnant women), while other trials looked at health systems interventions (home visits for pregnant women or equipment for clinics). Most trials took place in low- and middle-income countries, and 29 of the 34 trials used a cluster-randomised design. We assessed 30 of the 34 trials as of low or unclear overall risk of bias.

Comparison 1: One intervention versus no intervention

We found marginal improvements in ANC coverage of at least four visits (average odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.22; participants = 45,022; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 52%; high quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis with a more conservative intra-cluster correlation co-efficient (ICC) gave similar marginal results. Excluding one study at high risk of bias shifted the marginal pooled estimate towards no effect. There was no effect on pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.08; participants = 114,930; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; studies = 15; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 45%; moderate quality evidence) or low birthweight (average OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 5%; high quality evidence). Single interventions led to marginal improvements in the number of women who delivered in health facilities (average OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; high quality evidence), and in the proportion of women who had at least one ANC visit (average OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.79; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.24; I² = 76%; moderate quality evidence). Results for ANC coverage (at least four and at least one visit) and for perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Single interventions did not improve the proportion of women receiving tetanus protection (average OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; studies = 8; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 57%). No study reported onintermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria.

Comparison 2: Two or more interventions versus no intervention

We found no improvements in ANC coverage of four or more visits (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.21; participants = 7840; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.10; I² = 48%; low quality evidence) or pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.26; participants = 13,756; studies = three; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). However, combined interventions led to improvements in ANC coverage of at least one visit (average OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.17; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.06; I² = 83%; moderate quality evidence) and low birthweight (average OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; studies = two; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). Meta-analyses for both ANC coverage four or more visits and perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Combined interventions improved the proportion of women who had tetanus protection (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.87; studies = 3; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 33%). No trial in this comparison reported on intermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria.

Comparison 3: Two interventions compared head to head. No trials found.

Comparison 4: One intervention versus a combination of interventions

There was no difference in ANC coverage (four or more visits and at least one visit), pregnancy-related deaths, deliveries in a health facility or perinatal mortality. No trials in this comparison reported on low birthweight orintermittent prophylactic treatment of malaria.

Authors' conclusions
Implications for practice - Single interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit and four or more visits) and deliveries in health facilities. Combined interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit), reduce perinatal mortality and reduce the occurrence of low birthweight. The effects of the interventions are unrelated to whether they are community or health system interventions.

Implications for research - More details should be provided in reporting numbers of events, group totals and the ICCs used to adjust for cluster effects. Outcomes should be reported uniformly so that they are comparable to commonly-used population indicators. We recommend further cluster-RCTs of pregnant women and women in their reproductive years, using combinations of interventions and looking at outcomes that are important to pregnant women, such as maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, alongside the explanatory outcomes along the pathway of care: ANC coverage, the services provided during ANC and deliveries in health facilities.

/pdf/health-system-and-community-level-interventions-for-2ich8j9aay.pdf

Health system and community level interventions for improving antenatal care coverage and health outcomes

BACKGROUND: Facilitation of local women's groups may reportedly reduce neonatal mortality. It is not known whether facilitation of groups composed of local health care staff and politicians can imp ...

/pdf/effect-of-facilitation-of-local-maternal-and-newborn-5jb8c4mkhl.pdf

Effect of Facilitation of Local Maternal-and-Newborn Stakeholder Groups on Neonatal Mortality: Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Interventions by facilitation of local women’s groups are effective in reducing neonatal mortality in some low- income settings. It is not known whether facilitation of participatory gr ...

Effects of Facilitation of Local Maternal-and-Newborn Stakeholder Groups on Neonatal Mortality. The NeoKIP Cluster-Randominsed Trial in Quang Ninh Province, Vietnam. :

The research analyzes the factors affecting the tourists’ decision to visit agricultural farms in Thai Nguyen province. Three hundred tourists from 10 agritourism farms were surveyed, and the results showed that there are five factors affecting the decision of tourists in order of importance, including: “Motivation to travel” has the greatest influence with the coefficient β = 0.290, followed by “Destination image” with the coefficient β = 0.288, the factor “Destination information” with the coefficient β = 0.247 and the group “Other motives” with the coefficient β = 0.229. The factor group, “Infrastructure of the destination”, has the lowest influence with the coefficient β = 0.166. Therefore, solutions to promote the development of agricultural tourism in Thai Nguyen need to pay attention and guide people to cultivate or-ganically, preserve the environment and natural landscape, and create unique experiences for visitors. Authorities, local people, and travel agencies need to have seminars, develop specific agricultural tourism products, and apply information technology in advertising destination images to tourists.

Influencing Factors on Customers’ Decision to Visit Agritourism Farms: A Case Study in Viet Nam

VNU-LIC Digital Knowledge Center Model: Transforming Big Data into Knowledge

Purpose: The article aims to expand a scale system of factors that impacts on business performance.
 
Theoretical framework: The paper based on the empirical data collected from various types of participants, including accountants (for information providing), managers (for decision-making), sales staff (for work), and lecturers (for research) in Vietnam.
 
Design/methodology/approach: By descriptive and comparative statistical analysis of SPSS 20 software with 124 valid observations, the survey has proposed the scale system of influencing factors (03 groups of external factors, 05 groups of internal factors) and business performance measures (10 financial and 11 non-financial indicators).
 
Findings: This study points out the different evaluations according to the demographic features of survey subjects on the group of financial indicators. Specifically, the group of accountants (representing information providers) obtains a lower score than the group of information users. Likewise, the post-graduated participants show stricter assessments of financial indicators in comparison to the rest of the group.
 
Research, Practical & Social implications: These results suggest the scale system for measuring influencing factors toward business performance in enterprises for further research.
 
Originality/value: The value of the study is providing an expansion of the factors affecting the efficiency of an enterprise and points out a commonly used set of financial performance measurement indicators. Research results provide useful references for research on related issues.

/pdf/factors-affecting-business-performance-expanding-theoretical-85nsd0zo.pdf

Vu Thi Thu Thuy

Papers

Effect of Facilitation of Local Maternal-and-Newborn Stakeholder Groups on Neonatal Mortality: Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Effects of Facilitation of Local Maternal-and-Newborn Stakeholder Groups on Neonatal Mortality. The NeoKIP Cluster-Randominsed Trial in Quang Ninh Province, Vietnam. :

Influencing Factors on Customers’ Decision to Visit Agritourism Farms: A Case Study in Viet Nam

VNU-LIC Digital Knowledge Center Model: Transforming Big Data into Knowledge

Factors Affecting Business Performance: Expanding Theoretical Measurements