Iowa Implementation for Sustainability Framework.

Laura Cullen, Kirsten Hanrahan, Stephanie W Edmonds, Heather Schacht Reisinger, Michele Wagner
{"title":"Iowa Implementation for Sustainability Framework.","authors":"Laura Cullen,&nbsp;Kirsten Hanrahan,&nbsp;Stephanie W Edmonds,&nbsp;Heather Schacht Reisinger,&nbsp;Michele Wagner","doi":"10.1186/s13012-021-01157-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An application-oriented implementation framework designed for clinicians and based on the Diffusion of Innovations theory included 81 implementation strategies with suggested timing for use within four implementation phases. The purpose of this research was to evaluate and strengthen the framework for clinician use and propose its usefulness in implementation research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multi-step, iterative approach guided framework revisions. Individuals requesting the use of the framework over the previous 7 years were sent an electronic questionnaire. Evaluation captured framework usability, generalizability, accuracy, and implementation phases for each strategy. Next, nurse leaders who use the framework pile sorted strategies for cultural domain analysis. Last, a panel of five EBP/implementation experts used these data and built consensus to strengthen the framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (n = 127/1578; 8% response) were predominately nurses (94%), highly educated (94% Master's or higher), and from across healthcare (52% hospital/system, 31% academia, and 7% community) in the USA (84%). Most (96%) reported at least some experience using the framework and 88% would use the framework again. A 4-point scale (1 = not/disagree to 4 = very/agree) was used. The framework was deemed useful (92%, rating 3-4), easy to use (72%), intuitive (67%), generalizable (100%), flexible and adaptive (100%), with accurate phases (96%), and accurate targets (100%). Participants (n = 51) identified implementation strategy timing within four phases (Cochran's Q); 54 of 81 strategies (66.7%, p < 0.05) were significantly linked to a specific phase; of these, 30 (55.6%) matched the original framework. Next, nurse leaders (n = 23) completed a pile sorting activity. Anthropac software was used to analyze the data and visualize it as a domain map and hierarchical clusters with 10 domains. Lastly, experts used these data and implementation science to refine and specify each of the 75 strategies, identifying phase, domain, actors, and function. Strategy usability, timing, and groupings were used to refine the framework.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Iowa Implementation for Sustainability Framework offers a typology to guide implementation for evidence-based healthcare. This study specifies 75 implementation strategies within four phases and 10 domains and begins to validate the framework. Standard use of strategy names is foundational to compare and understand when implementation strategies are effective, in what dose, for which topics, by whom, and in what context.</p>","PeriodicalId":417097,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science : IS","volume":" ","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8725573/pdf/","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation Science : IS","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01157-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background: An application-oriented implementation framework designed for clinicians and based on the Diffusion of Innovations theory included 81 implementation strategies with suggested timing for use within four implementation phases. The purpose of this research was to evaluate and strengthen the framework for clinician use and propose its usefulness in implementation research.

Methods: A multi-step, iterative approach guided framework revisions. Individuals requesting the use of the framework over the previous 7 years were sent an electronic questionnaire. Evaluation captured framework usability, generalizability, accuracy, and implementation phases for each strategy. Next, nurse leaders who use the framework pile sorted strategies for cultural domain analysis. Last, a panel of five EBP/implementation experts used these data and built consensus to strengthen the framework.

Results: Participants (n = 127/1578; 8% response) were predominately nurses (94%), highly educated (94% Master's or higher), and from across healthcare (52% hospital/system, 31% academia, and 7% community) in the USA (84%). Most (96%) reported at least some experience using the framework and 88% would use the framework again. A 4-point scale (1 = not/disagree to 4 = very/agree) was used. The framework was deemed useful (92%, rating 3-4), easy to use (72%), intuitive (67%), generalizable (100%), flexible and adaptive (100%), with accurate phases (96%), and accurate targets (100%). Participants (n = 51) identified implementation strategy timing within four phases (Cochran's Q); 54 of 81 strategies (66.7%, p < 0.05) were significantly linked to a specific phase; of these, 30 (55.6%) matched the original framework. Next, nurse leaders (n = 23) completed a pile sorting activity. Anthropac software was used to analyze the data and visualize it as a domain map and hierarchical clusters with 10 domains. Lastly, experts used these data and implementation science to refine and specify each of the 75 strategies, identifying phase, domain, actors, and function. Strategy usability, timing, and groupings were used to refine the framework.

Conclusion: The Iowa Implementation for Sustainability Framework offers a typology to guide implementation for evidence-based healthcare. This study specifies 75 implementation strategies within four phases and 10 domains and begins to validate the framework. Standard use of strategy names is foundational to compare and understand when implementation strategies are effective, in what dose, for which topics, by whom, and in what context.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

爱荷华州实施可持续发展框架。
背景:基于创新扩散理论,为临床医生设计的面向应用的实施框架包括81个实施策略,并建议在四个实施阶段使用时间。本研究的目的是评估和加强临床医生使用的框架,并提出其在实施研究中的有用性。方法:多步骤,迭代方法指导框架修订。在过去7年中要求使用该框架的个人收到了一份电子问卷。评估每个策略捕获的框架可用性、泛化性、准确性和实现阶段。接下来,使用框架堆分类策略的护士领导进行文化领域分析。最后,由五名EBP/实施专家组成的小组使用这些数据并建立共识以加强框架。结果:受试者(n = 127/1578;(8%的回应)主要是护士(94%),受过高等教育(94%的硕士或更高学历),来自美国医疗保健行业(52%的医院/系统,31%的学术界,7%的社区)(84%)。大多数(96%)报告至少有一些使用该框架的经验,88%的人会再次使用该框架。调查采用4分制(1 =不同意/不同意,4 =非常同意/不同意)。该框架被认为是有用的(92%,评分3-4),易于使用(72%),直观(67%),可概括(100%),灵活和自适应(100%),具有准确的阶段(96%)和准确的目标(100%)。参与者(n = 51)确定了四个阶段的实施策略时机(科克伦Q);81种策略中有54种(66.7%,p < 0.05)与特定阶段显著相关;其中30例(55.6%)与原始框架匹配。接下来,护士长(n = 23)完成了一项堆分类活动。使用Anthropac软件对数据进行分析,并将其可视化为10个域的域图和分层簇。最后,专家们使用这些数据和实施科学来细化和指定75个策略中的每一个,确定阶段、领域、参与者和功能。使用策略可用性、时间和分组来完善框架。结论:爱荷华州实施可持续发展框架提供了一种类型来指导循证医疗保健的实施。本研究在4个阶段和10个领域中指定了75个实施策略,并开始验证该框架。标准使用策略名称是比较和理解实现策略何时有效、以何种剂量有效、针对哪些主题有效、由谁有效以及在何种上下文中有效的基础。
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