Determining the process components of impact assessment in health and social program implementation: A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
S Lukersmith, C Woods, H Sarma, C de Miquel, L Salvador-Carulla
{"title":"Determining the process components of impact assessment in health and social program implementation: A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks.","authors":"S Lukersmith, C Woods, H Sarma, C de Miquel, L Salvador-Carulla","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2024.12.056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Health and social service research impact analysis play a pivotal role in demonstrating research value. Impact analysis of programs, interventions, or policies in real-world settings is complex. There are many implementation evaluation theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) and researchers find choosing one challenging. Our objective was to systematically scope TMFs, review and chart key components of the process of implementation impact analysis to identify gaps.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A scoping review was undertaken and reported using PRISMA-ScR guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic literature searches were conducted for impact analysis and impact assessment TMFs in MEDLINE, SCOPUS databases, hand searches, and expert directed search (2010-2024). Peer-reviewed articles were eligible for inclusion if they described an implementation evaluation TMF in English and used in the real world. Data extracted by the study team was charted in an Excel spreadsheet.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review identified 71 relevant papers which included a theory (n = 6), model (n = 14), or framework (n = 51). Most considered resources and/or results, whereas only 25 % considered implementation process components. Ten frameworks were deemed comprehensive and covered at least two phases of implementation and five components. Most frameworks had not developed or tested practical tools to facilitate use of the framework.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No frameworks were identified that incorporated all phases of implementation, nor key components of the process in each phase of implementation research. The findings highlight the need to identify key components and develop a taxonomy, glossary and tools to assess the process components of implementation in real world settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":"240 ","pages":"41-47"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2024.12.056","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Health and social service research impact analysis play a pivotal role in demonstrating research value. Impact analysis of programs, interventions, or policies in real-world settings is complex. There are many implementation evaluation theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) and researchers find choosing one challenging. Our objective was to systematically scope TMFs, review and chart key components of the process of implementation impact analysis to identify gaps.

Study design: A scoping review was undertaken and reported using PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted for impact analysis and impact assessment TMFs in MEDLINE, SCOPUS databases, hand searches, and expert directed search (2010-2024). Peer-reviewed articles were eligible for inclusion if they described an implementation evaluation TMF in English and used in the real world. Data extracted by the study team was charted in an Excel spreadsheet.

Results: The review identified 71 relevant papers which included a theory (n = 6), model (n = 14), or framework (n = 51). Most considered resources and/or results, whereas only 25 % considered implementation process components. Ten frameworks were deemed comprehensive and covered at least two phases of implementation and five components. Most frameworks had not developed or tested practical tools to facilitate use of the framework.

Conclusions: No frameworks were identified that incorporated all phases of implementation, nor key components of the process in each phase of implementation research. The findings highlight the need to identify key components and develop a taxonomy, glossary and tools to assess the process components of implementation in real world settings.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Health
Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
280
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Public Health is an international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal. It publishes original papers, reviews and short reports on all aspects of the science, philosophy, and practice of public health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信