Author:
Squires Janet E.,Graham Ian D.,Santos Wilmer J.,Hutchinson Alison M.,Backman Chantal,Bergström Anna,Brehaut Jamie,Brouwers Melissa,Burton Christopher,de Candido Ligyana Korki,Cassidy Christine,Chalmers Cheyne,Chapman Anna,Colquhoun Heather,Curran Janet,Varin Melissa Demery,Doering Paula,Rose Annette Elliott,Fairclough Lee,Francis Jillian,Godfrey Christina,Greenough Megan,Grimshaw Jeremy M.,Grinspun Doris,Harvey Gillian,Hillmer Michael,Ivers Noah,Lavis John,Li Shelly-Anne,Michie Susan,Miller Wayne,Noseworthy Thomas,Rader Tamara,Robson Mark,Rycroft-Malone Jo,Stacey Dawn,Straus Sharon,Tricco Andrea C.,Wallin Lars,Watkins Vanessa,
Abstract
Abstract
Background
There is growing evidence that context mediates the effects of implementation interventions intended to increase healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is elusive. The purpose of this study was to advance conceptual clarity on context by developing the Implementation in Context Framework, a meta-framework of the context domains, attributes and features that can facilitate or hinder healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence and the effectiveness of implementation interventions in clinical practice.
Methods
We conducted a meta-synthesis of data from three interrelated studies: (1) a concept analysis of published literature on context (n = 70 studies), (2) a secondary analysis of healthcare professional interviews (n = 145) examining context across 11 unique studies and (3) a descriptive qualitative study comprised of interviews with heath system stakeholders (n = 39) in four countries to elicit their tacit knowledge on the attributes and features of context. A rigorous protocol was followed for the meta-synthesis, resulting in development of the Implementation in Context Framework. Following this meta-synthesis, the framework was further refined through feedback from experts in context and implementation science.
Results
In the Implementation in Context Framework, context is conceptualized in three levels: micro (individual), meso (organizational), and macro (external). The three levels are composed of six contextual domains: (1) actors (micro), (2) organizational climate and structures (meso), (3) organizational social behaviour (meso), (4) organizational response to change (meso), (5) organizational processes (meso) and (6) external influences (macro). These six domains contain 22 core attributes of context and 108 features that illustrate these attributes.
Conclusions
The Implementation in Context Framework is the only meta-framework of context available to guide implementation efforts of healthcare professionals. It provides a comprehensive and critically needed understanding of the context domains, attributes and features relevant to healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. The Implementation in Context Framework can inform implementation intervention design and delivery to better interpret the effects of implementation interventions, and pragmatically guide implementation efforts that enhance evidence uptake and sustainability by healthcare professionals.
Funder
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference62 articles.
1. Hogg W, Lemelin J, Dahrouge S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of anticipatory and preventive multidisciplinary team care: for complex patients in a community-based primary care setting. Can Fam Physician. 2009;55(12):e76-85.
2. Hogg W, Lemelin J, Graham ID, et al. Improving prevention in primary care: evaluating the effectiveness of outreach facilitation. Fam Pract. 2008;25(1):40–8.
3. Shojania K, Jennings A, Mayhew A, Ramsay C, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. The effects on on-screen, point of care computer reminders on process and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3: CD001096.
4. Joseph-Williams N, Abhyankar P, Boland L, et al. What works in implementing patient decision aids in routine clinical settings? A rapid realist review and update from the international patient decision aid standards collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):907–37.
5. Berry DL, Hong F, Halpenny B, et al. Evaluating clinical implementation approaches for prostate cancer decision support. Urol Pract. 2019;6(2):93–9.