对卫生和人类服务环境中经过实验测试的实施策略进行系统回顾:2010-2022 年的证据。

IF 8.8 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Laura Ellen Ashcraft, David E Goodrich, Joachim Hero, Angela Phares, Rachel L Bachrach, Deirdre A Quinn, Nabeel Qureshi, Natalie C Ernecoff, Lisa G Lederer, Leslie Page Scheunemann, Shari S Rogal, Matthew J Chinman
{"title":"对卫生和人类服务环境中经过实验测试的实施策略进行系统回顾:2010-2022 年的证据。","authors":"Laura Ellen Ashcraft, David E Goodrich, Joachim Hero, Angela Phares, Rachel L Bachrach, Deirdre A Quinn, Nabeel Qureshi, Natalie C Ernecoff, Lisa G Lederer, Leslie Page Scheunemann, Shari S Rogal, Matthew J Chinman","doi":"10.1186/s13012-024-01369-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Studies of implementation strategies range in rigor, design, and evaluated outcomes, presenting interpretation challenges for practitioners and researchers. This systematic review aimed to describe the body of research evidence testing implementation strategies across diverse settings and domains, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy to classify strategies and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to classify outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of studies examining implementation strategies from 2010-2022 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235592). We searched databases using terms \"implementation strategy\", \"intervention\", \"bundle\", \"support\", and their variants. We also solicited study recommendations from implementation science experts and mined existing systematic reviews. We included studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of at least one implementation strategy to improve health or health care using an outcome that could be mapped to the five evaluation dimensions of RE-AIM. Only studies meeting prespecified methodologic standards were included. We described the characteristics of studies and frequency of implementation strategy use across study arms. We also examined common strategy pairings and cooccurrence with significant outcomes.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Our search resulted in 16,605 studies; 129 met inclusion criteria. Studies tested an average of 6.73 strategies (0-20 range). The most assessed outcomes were Effectiveness (n=82; 64%) and Implementation (n=73; 56%). The implementation strategies most frequently occurring in the experimental arm were Distribute Educational Materials (n=99), Conduct Educational Meetings (n=96), Audit and Provide Feedback (n=76), and External Facilitation (n=59). These strategies were often used in combination. Nineteen implementation strategies were frequently tested and associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, many strategies were not tested sufficiently to draw conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review of 129 methodologically rigorous studies built upon prior implementation science data syntheses to identify implementation strategies that had been experimentally tested and summarized their impact on outcomes across diverse outcomes and clinical settings. We present recommendations for improving future similar efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":54995,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science","volume":"19 1","pages":"43"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11194895/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022.\",\"authors\":\"Laura Ellen Ashcraft, David E Goodrich, Joachim Hero, Angela Phares, Rachel L Bachrach, Deirdre A Quinn, Nabeel Qureshi, Natalie C Ernecoff, Lisa G Lederer, Leslie Page Scheunemann, Shari S Rogal, Matthew J Chinman\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13012-024-01369-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Studies of implementation strategies range in rigor, design, and evaluated outcomes, presenting interpretation challenges for practitioners and researchers. This systematic review aimed to describe the body of research evidence testing implementation strategies across diverse settings and domains, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy to classify strategies and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to classify outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of studies examining implementation strategies from 2010-2022 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235592). We searched databases using terms \\\"implementation strategy\\\", \\\"intervention\\\", \\\"bundle\\\", \\\"support\\\", and their variants. We also solicited study recommendations from implementation science experts and mined existing systematic reviews. We included studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of at least one implementation strategy to improve health or health care using an outcome that could be mapped to the five evaluation dimensions of RE-AIM. Only studies meeting prespecified methodologic standards were included. We described the characteristics of studies and frequency of implementation strategy use across study arms. We also examined common strategy pairings and cooccurrence with significant outcomes.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Our search resulted in 16,605 studies; 129 met inclusion criteria. Studies tested an average of 6.73 strategies (0-20 range). The most assessed outcomes were Effectiveness (n=82; 64%) and Implementation (n=73; 56%). The implementation strategies most frequently occurring in the experimental arm were Distribute Educational Materials (n=99), Conduct Educational Meetings (n=96), Audit and Provide Feedback (n=76), and External Facilitation (n=59). These strategies were often used in combination. Nineteen implementation strategies were frequently tested and associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, many strategies were not tested sufficiently to draw conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review of 129 methodologically rigorous studies built upon prior implementation science data syntheses to identify implementation strategies that had been experimentally tested and summarized their impact on outcomes across diverse outcomes and clinical settings. We present recommendations for improving future similar efforts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation Science\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11194895/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01369-5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01369-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有关实施策略的研究在严谨性、设计和评估结果方面各不相同,给从业人员和研究人员带来了解释方面的挑战。本系统性综述旨在描述在不同环境和领域测试实施策略的研究证据,采用实施变革专家建议(ERIC)分类法对策略进行分类,并采用 "达到效果采用实施和维持"(RE-AIM)框架对结果进行分类:我们对 2010-2022 年间研究实施策略并在 PROSPERO(CRD42021235592)注册的研究进行了系统回顾。我们使用 "实施策略"、"干预"、"捆绑"、"支持 "及其变体等术语对数据库进行了检索。我们还征求了实施科学专家的研究建议,并挖掘了现有的系统综述。我们纳入的研究至少对一种实施策略对改善健康或医疗保健的影响进行了定量评估,其结果可映射到 RE-AIM 的五个评估维度。只有符合预设方法标准的研究才被纳入。我们描述了各项研究的特点以及各研究臂使用实施策略的频率。我们还检查了常见的策略配对以及与重要结果的共存情况:我们搜索了 16605 项研究,其中 129 项符合纳入标准。这些研究平均测试了 6.73 种策略(0-20 不等)。评估最多的结果是有效性(82 项,占 64%)和实施(73 项,占 56%)。在实验组中最常出现的实施策略是分发教育材料(n=99)、召开教育会议(n=96)、审计和提供反馈(n=76)以及外部促进(n=59)。这些策略经常结合使用。有 19 种实施策略经常接受测试,并与显著改善的结果相关联。然而,许多策略没有经过充分测试,因此无法得出结论:本研究对 129 项方法严谨的研究进行了回顾,在之前实施科学数据综合的基础上,确定了经过实验测试的实施策略,并总结了这些策略在不同结果和临床环境下对结果的影响。我们提出了改进未来类似工作的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022.

Background: Studies of implementation strategies range in rigor, design, and evaluated outcomes, presenting interpretation challenges for practitioners and researchers. This systematic review aimed to describe the body of research evidence testing implementation strategies across diverse settings and domains, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy to classify strategies and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to classify outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies examining implementation strategies from 2010-2022 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235592). We searched databases using terms "implementation strategy", "intervention", "bundle", "support", and their variants. We also solicited study recommendations from implementation science experts and mined existing systematic reviews. We included studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of at least one implementation strategy to improve health or health care using an outcome that could be mapped to the five evaluation dimensions of RE-AIM. Only studies meeting prespecified methodologic standards were included. We described the characteristics of studies and frequency of implementation strategy use across study arms. We also examined common strategy pairings and cooccurrence with significant outcomes.

Findings: Our search resulted in 16,605 studies; 129 met inclusion criteria. Studies tested an average of 6.73 strategies (0-20 range). The most assessed outcomes were Effectiveness (n=82; 64%) and Implementation (n=73; 56%). The implementation strategies most frequently occurring in the experimental arm were Distribute Educational Materials (n=99), Conduct Educational Meetings (n=96), Audit and Provide Feedback (n=76), and External Facilitation (n=59). These strategies were often used in combination. Nineteen implementation strategies were frequently tested and associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, many strategies were not tested sufficiently to draw conclusions.

Conclusion: This review of 129 methodologically rigorous studies built upon prior implementation science data syntheses to identify implementation strategies that had been experimentally tested and summarized their impact on outcomes across diverse outcomes and clinical settings. We present recommendations for improving future similar efforts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Implementation Science
Implementation Science 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
14.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
78
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Implementation Science is a leading journal committed to disseminating evidence on methods for integrating research findings into routine healthcare practice and policy. It offers a multidisciplinary platform for studying implementation strategies, encompassing their development, outcomes, economics, processes, and associated factors. The journal prioritizes rigorous studies and innovative, theory-based approaches, covering implementation science across various healthcare services and settings.
×
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