Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: a critical interpretive synthesis.

Heather L Bullock, John N Lavis, Michael G Wilson, Gillian Mulvale, Ashleigh Miatello
{"title":"Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: a critical interpretive synthesis.","authors":"Heather L Bullock,&nbsp;John N Lavis,&nbsp;Michael G Wilson,&nbsp;Gillian Mulvale,&nbsp;Ashleigh Miatello","doi":"10.1186/s13012-021-01082-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The fields of implementation science and knowledge translation have evolved somewhat independently from the field of policy implementation research, despite calls for better integration. As a result, implementation theory and empirical work do not often reflect the implementation experience from a policy lens nor benefit from the scholarship in all three fields. This means policymakers, researchers, and practitioners may find it challenging to draw from theory that adequately reflects their implementation efforts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed an integrated theoretical framework of the implementation process from a policy perspective by combining findings from these fields using the critical interpretive synthesis method. We began with the compass question: How is policy currently described in implementation theory and processes and what aspects of policy are important for implementation success? We then searched 12 databases as well as gray literature and supplemented these documents with other sources to fill conceptual gaps. Using a grounded and interpretive approach to analysis, we built the framework constructs, drawing largely from the theoretical literature and then tested and refined the framework using empirical literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11,434 documents were retrieved and assessed for eligibility and 35 additional documents were identified through other sources. Eighty-six unique documents were ultimately included in the analysis. Our findings indicate that policy is described as (1) the context, (2) a focusing lens, (3) the innovation itself, (4) a lever of influence, (5) an enabler/facilitator or barrier, or (6) an outcome. Policy actors were also identified as important participants or leaders of implementation. Our analysis led to the development of a two-part conceptual framework, including process and determinant components.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This framework begins to bridge the divide between disciplines and provides a new perspective about implementation processes at the systems level. It offers researchers, policymakers, and implementers a new way of thinking about implementation that better integrates policy considerations and can be used for planning or evaluating implementation efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":417097,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science : IS","volume":" ","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s13012-021-01082-7","citationCount":"44","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation Science : IS","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01082-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44

Abstract

Background: The fields of implementation science and knowledge translation have evolved somewhat independently from the field of policy implementation research, despite calls for better integration. As a result, implementation theory and empirical work do not often reflect the implementation experience from a policy lens nor benefit from the scholarship in all three fields. This means policymakers, researchers, and practitioners may find it challenging to draw from theory that adequately reflects their implementation efforts.

Methods: We developed an integrated theoretical framework of the implementation process from a policy perspective by combining findings from these fields using the critical interpretive synthesis method. We began with the compass question: How is policy currently described in implementation theory and processes and what aspects of policy are important for implementation success? We then searched 12 databases as well as gray literature and supplemented these documents with other sources to fill conceptual gaps. Using a grounded and interpretive approach to analysis, we built the framework constructs, drawing largely from the theoretical literature and then tested and refined the framework using empirical literature.

Results: A total of 11,434 documents were retrieved and assessed for eligibility and 35 additional documents were identified through other sources. Eighty-six unique documents were ultimately included in the analysis. Our findings indicate that policy is described as (1) the context, (2) a focusing lens, (3) the innovation itself, (4) a lever of influence, (5) an enabler/facilitator or barrier, or (6) an outcome. Policy actors were also identified as important participants or leaders of implementation. Our analysis led to the development of a two-part conceptual framework, including process and determinant components.

Conclusions: This framework begins to bridge the divide between disciplines and provides a new perspective about implementation processes at the systems level. It offers researchers, policymakers, and implementers a new way of thinking about implementation that better integrates policy considerations and can be used for planning or evaluating implementation efforts.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

从政策角度理解循证政策和实践的实施:一个关键的解释性综合。
背景:实施科学和知识翻译领域在一定程度上独立于政策实施研究领域,尽管呼吁更好地整合。因此,实施理论和实证工作往往不能从政策角度反映实施经验,也不能从这三个领域的学术成果中受益。这意味着政策制定者、研究人员和实践者可能会发现,从充分反映其实施努力的理论中汲取教训是一项挑战。方法:我们利用批判性解释综合方法,结合这些领域的研究成果,从政策角度构建了实施过程的综合理论框架。我们从指南针问题开始:目前政策在实施理论和过程中是如何描述的,政策的哪些方面对实施的成功是重要的?然后,我们检索了12个数据库以及灰色文献,并用其他来源补充了这些文献,以填补概念空白。使用一种扎根和解释的分析方法,我们构建了框架结构,主要从理论文献中提取,然后使用经验文献对框架进行测试和完善。结果:共检索并评估了11,434份文件,并通过其他来源确定了35份额外文件。86份独特的文件最终被纳入分析。我们的研究结果表明,政策被描述为(1)背景,(2)聚焦镜头,(3)创新本身,(4)影响杠杆,(5)使能者/促进者或障碍,或(6)结果。政策行为者也被确定为执行工作的重要参与者或领导者。我们的分析导致了一个由两部分组成的概念框架的发展,包括过程和决定因素。结论:这个框架开始弥合学科之间的鸿沟,并提供了一个关于系统级实施过程的新视角。它为研究人员、政策制定者和实施者提供了一种思考实施的新方式,可以更好地整合政策考虑因素,并可用于规划或评估实施工作。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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