Reported use of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks in 151 implementation trials: secondary analysis of a systematic review targeting nursing practice.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Charlene Weight, Rachael Laritz, Simonne E Collins, Meagan Mooney, Billy Vinette, Sonia A Castiglione, Nicola Straiton, Gabrielle Chicoine, Shuang Liang, Justin Presseau, Kristin Konnyu, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Sonia Semenic, Sandy Middleton, Natalie Taylor, Vasiliki Bessy Bitzas, Catherine Hupé, Nathalie Folch, Brigitte Vachon, Geneviève Rouleau, Andrea Patey, Nicola McCleary, Joshua Porat-Dahlerbruch, Guillaume Fontaine
{"title":"Reported use of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks in 151 implementation trials: secondary analysis of a systematic review targeting nursing practice.","authors":"Charlene Weight, Rachael Laritz, Simonne E Collins, Meagan Mooney, Billy Vinette, Sonia A Castiglione, Nicola Straiton, Gabrielle Chicoine, Shuang Liang, Justin Presseau, Kristin Konnyu, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Sonia Semenic, Sandy Middleton, Natalie Taylor, Vasiliki Bessy Bitzas, Catherine Hupé, Nathalie Folch, Brigitte Vachon, Geneviève Rouleau, Andrea Patey, Nicola McCleary, Joshua Porat-Dahlerbruch, Guillaume Fontaine","doi":"10.1093/tbm/ibaf043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) are central to the development and evaluation of implementation strategies supporting evidence-based practice (EBP). However, evidence on how and to what extent TMFs are used in implementation trials remains limited.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to examine the nature and extent of TMF use in implementation trials, identify which TMFs are most frequently employed, and explore temporal trends in their use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A secondary analysis was conducted on 151 randomized trials of implementation strategies targeting EBP in nursing. Trials and their protocols were coded in NVivo 14 using a framework adapted from Painter's continuum of theory use (2005) and Michie and Prestwich's theory coding scheme (2010). The framework categorized theory use as \"informed by,\" \"applied,\" \"tested,\" or \"built\" theory. Descriptive statistics were calculated in R, and temporal trends in TMF use across categories were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 151 trials, 54 (36%) reported using a TMF. Of these, most applied TMFs to guide implementation strategy design (28%), followed by justifying the study's purpose, aims, or objectives (15%). Testing theory was infrequent (9%), and no trials reported refining or building theory. Classic theories, such as the theory of planned behavior and social cognitive theory, were the most frequently cited. No clear temporal trend was found in TMF use across the categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TMFs remain underutilized in implementation trials, with their application primarily limited to justifying study rationale or informing implementation strategy development. Greater emphasis on the testing and refinement of TMFs is recommended to advance implementation science.</p><p><strong>Registration information: </strong>Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019130446.</p>","PeriodicalId":48679,"journal":{"name":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12422783/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibaf043","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

Background: Theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) are central to the development and evaluation of implementation strategies supporting evidence-based practice (EBP). However, evidence on how and to what extent TMFs are used in implementation trials remains limited.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the nature and extent of TMF use in implementation trials, identify which TMFs are most frequently employed, and explore temporal trends in their use.

Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted on 151 randomized trials of implementation strategies targeting EBP in nursing. Trials and their protocols were coded in NVivo 14 using a framework adapted from Painter's continuum of theory use (2005) and Michie and Prestwich's theory coding scheme (2010). The framework categorized theory use as "informed by," "applied," "tested," or "built" theory. Descriptive statistics were calculated in R, and temporal trends in TMF use across categories were analyzed.

Results: Among the 151 trials, 54 (36%) reported using a TMF. Of these, most applied TMFs to guide implementation strategy design (28%), followed by justifying the study's purpose, aims, or objectives (15%). Testing theory was infrequent (9%), and no trials reported refining or building theory. Classic theories, such as the theory of planned behavior and social cognitive theory, were the most frequently cited. No clear temporal trend was found in TMF use across the categories.

Conclusions: TMFs remain underutilized in implementation trials, with their application primarily limited to justifying study rationale or informing implementation strategy development. Greater emphasis on the testing and refinement of TMFs is recommended to advance implementation science.

Registration information: Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019130446.

Abstract Image

报告在151项实施试验中使用实施科学理论、模型和框架:针对护理实践的系统评价的二次分析。
背景:理论、模型和框架(tmf)对于支持循证实践(EBP)的实施策略的开发和评估至关重要。然而,关于在实施试验中如何以及在多大程度上使用TMFs的证据仍然有限。目的:本研究旨在考察在实施试验中使用TMF的性质和程度,确定哪些TMF最常被使用,并探讨其使用的时间趋势。方法:对151项针对EBP在护理中实施策略的随机试验进行二次分析。试验及其协议在NVivo 14中进行编码,使用的框架改编自Painter的理论使用连续体(2005年)和Michie和Prestwich的理论编码方案(2010年)。该框架将理论使用分类为“通过”、“应用”、“测试”或“构建”理论。在R中计算描述性统计,并分析不同类别的TMF使用的时间趋势。结果:在151项试验中,54项(36%)报告使用了TMF。其中,大多数应用tmf来指导实施策略设计(28%),其次是证明研究的目的、目的或目标(15%)。测试理论很少(9%),没有试验报告改进或建立理论。计划行为理论和社会认知理论等经典理论是最常被引用的。在不同类别的TMF使用中没有明显的时间趋势。结论:tmf在实施试验中仍未得到充分利用,其应用主要限于证明研究理由或为实施策略制定提供信息。建议更加重视tmf的测试和改进,以推进实现科学。注册信息:审核注册:PROSPERO CRD42019130446。
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
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Translational Behavioral Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Translational Behavioral Medicine publishes content that engages, informs, and catalyzes dialogue about behavioral medicine among the research, practice, and policy communities. TBM began receiving an Impact Factor in 2015 and currently holds an Impact Factor of 2.989. TBM is one of two journals published by the Society of Behavioral Medicine. The Society of Behavioral Medicine is a multidisciplinary organization of clinicians, educators, and scientists dedicated to promoting the study of the interactions of behavior with biology and the environment, and then applying that knowledge to improve the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities, and populations.
×
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