Organizational readiness for change: A systematic review of the healthcare literature.

Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2025-05-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26334895251334536
Laura Caci, Emanuela Nyantakyi, Kathrin Blum, Ashlesha Sonpar, Marie-Therese Schultes, Bianca Albers, Lauren Clack
{"title":"Organizational readiness for change: A systematic review of the healthcare literature.","authors":"Laura Caci, Emanuela Nyantakyi, Kathrin Blum, Ashlesha Sonpar, Marie-Therese Schultes, Bianca Albers, Lauren Clack","doi":"10.1177/26334895251334536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Organizational readiness for change (ORC), referring to psychological and behavioral preparedness of organizational members for implementation, is often cited in healthcare implementation research. However, evidence about whether and under which conditions ORC is relevant for positive implementation results remains ambiguous, with past studies building on various theories and assessing ORC with different measures. To strengthen the ORC knowledge base, we therefore identified factors investigated in the empirical literature alongside ORC, or as mediators and/or moderators of ORC and implementation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of experimental, observational, and hybrid studies in physical, mental, and public health care that included a quantitative assessment of ORC and at least one other factor (e.g., ORC correlate, predictor, moderator, or mediator). Studies were identified searching five online databases and bibliographies of included studies, employing dual abstract and full text screening. The study synthesis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research integrated with the Theory of ORC. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2,907 identified studies, 47 met inclusion criteria, investigating a broad range of factors alongside ORC, particularly contextual factors related to individuals and the innovation. Various ORC measures, both home-grown or theory-informed, were used, confirming a lack of conceptual clarity surrounding ORC. In most studies, ORC was measured only once.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review highlights the broad range of factors investigated in relation to ORC, suggesting that such investigation may enhance interpretation of implementation results. However, the observed diversity in ORC conceptualization and measurement supports previous calls for clearer conceptual definitions of ORC. Future efforts should integrate team-level perspectives, recognizing ORC as both an individual and team attribute. Prioritizing the use of rigorous, repeated ORC measures in longitudinal implementation research is essential for advancing the collective ORC knowledge base.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":"6 ","pages":"26334895251334536"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12084713/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895251334536","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Organizational readiness for change (ORC), referring to psychological and behavioral preparedness of organizational members for implementation, is often cited in healthcare implementation research. However, evidence about whether and under which conditions ORC is relevant for positive implementation results remains ambiguous, with past studies building on various theories and assessing ORC with different measures. To strengthen the ORC knowledge base, we therefore identified factors investigated in the empirical literature alongside ORC, or as mediators and/or moderators of ORC and implementation.

Method: We conducted a systematic review of experimental, observational, and hybrid studies in physical, mental, and public health care that included a quantitative assessment of ORC and at least one other factor (e.g., ORC correlate, predictor, moderator, or mediator). Studies were identified searching five online databases and bibliographies of included studies, employing dual abstract and full text screening. The study synthesis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research integrated with the Theory of ORC. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Results: Of 2,907 identified studies, 47 met inclusion criteria, investigating a broad range of factors alongside ORC, particularly contextual factors related to individuals and the innovation. Various ORC measures, both home-grown or theory-informed, were used, confirming a lack of conceptual clarity surrounding ORC. In most studies, ORC was measured only once.

Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the broad range of factors investigated in relation to ORC, suggesting that such investigation may enhance interpretation of implementation results. However, the observed diversity in ORC conceptualization and measurement supports previous calls for clearer conceptual definitions of ORC. Future efforts should integrate team-level perspectives, recognizing ORC as both an individual and team attribute. Prioritizing the use of rigorous, repeated ORC measures in longitudinal implementation research is essential for advancing the collective ORC knowledge base.

组织准备变革:卫生保健文献的系统回顾。
背景:组织变革准备(Organizational readiness for change, ORC)是指组织成员为实施变革所做的心理和行为准备,在医疗保健实施研究中经常被引用。然而,关于ORC是否以及在何种条件下与积极的实施结果相关的证据仍然不明确,过去的研究建立在各种理论之上,并以不同的措施评估ORC。因此,为了加强ORC知识库,我们确定了与ORC一起在实证文献中调查的因素,或作为ORC和实施的中介和/或调节因子。方法:我们对身体、精神和公共卫生保健方面的实验、观察和混合研究进行了系统回顾,包括对ORC和至少一个其他因素(例如,ORC相关因素、预测因素、调节因素或中介因素)的定量评估。研究通过搜索5个在线数据库和纳入研究的参考书目来确定,采用双重摘要和全文筛选。本研究以整合ORC理论的实施研究综合框架为指导。采用混合方法评价工具评价研究质量。结果:在2907项确定的研究中,47项符合纳入标准,与ORC一起调查了广泛的因素,特别是与个人和创新相关的背景因素。我们使用了各种ORC测量方法,既有国内的,也有理论依据的,这证实了围绕ORC缺乏概念清晰度。在大多数研究中,ORC只测量一次。结论:本系统综述强调了与ORC相关的广泛调查因素,表明此类调查可以加强对实施结果的解释。然而,观察到的ORC概念化和测量的多样性支持了先前对ORC概念定义更清晰的呼吁。未来的工作应该整合团队层面的视角,认识到ORC既是个人属性,也是团队属性。在纵向实施研究中优先使用严格的、重复的ORC措施对于推进集体ORC知识库至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信