为联邦卫生和人类服务机构选择、监督和支持受助人制定的重要实施方案

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Allison B. Dymnicki, Robin Bzura, D. Osher, A. Wandersman, D. Duplantier, Michelle J. Boyd, Amanda Cash, Lindsey Hutchison
{"title":"为联邦卫生和人类服务机构选择、监督和支持受助人制定的重要实施方案","authors":"Allison B. Dymnicki, Robin Bzura, D. Osher, A. Wandersman, D. Duplantier, Michelle J. Boyd, Amanda Cash, Lindsey Hutchison","doi":"10.1332/174426418X15409834211096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Federal agencies and other funders seeking to maximise their impact aim to understand factors associated with implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to address health problems. Challenges exist, however, in synthesising information from different disciplines\n and reaching agreement about these factors due to different terminology, frameworks, and measures being used in different fields. Methods:A mixed-methods approach was used to identifying a set of implementation constructs helpful for selecting, monitoring, and supporting\n federal grantees in health and human service settings. Three phases of research were conducted: a literature review, structured expert interviews, and consensus building. Interviews with implementation experts were used to validate a set of implementation constructs identified in the literature\n review as strongly and consistently related to successful implementation of EBIs in international contexts. A modified Delphi approach was used with a technical working group (TWG) of federal staff to agree on the constructs most relevant for federally funded EBIs. Findings:This\n process yielded 11 constructs related to either the intervention, the intersection between the invention and context, or the implementation process. These constructs are areas of interest when integrating research evidence into routine practice. Expert interviewees recommended establishing\n clear, consistent construct definitions before developing valid, feasible measures of the constructs. In contrast to the numerous and specific constructs advanced by researchers, federal TWG members favoured fewer constructs with more generalisability. Discussion and conclusions:This\n article demonstrates the translation work required for policy contexts and highlights a successful approach to translate evidence from implementation science research for federal staff.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"375-392"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Important implementation constructs for federal agencies in health and human service settings that are selecting, monitoring, and supporting grantees\",\"authors\":\"Allison B. Dymnicki, Robin Bzura, D. Osher, A. Wandersman, D. Duplantier, Michelle J. Boyd, Amanda Cash, Lindsey Hutchison\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/174426418X15409834211096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background:Federal agencies and other funders seeking to maximise their impact aim to understand factors associated with implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to address health problems. Challenges exist, however, in synthesising information from different disciplines\\n and reaching agreement about these factors due to different terminology, frameworks, and measures being used in different fields. Methods:A mixed-methods approach was used to identifying a set of implementation constructs helpful for selecting, monitoring, and supporting\\n federal grantees in health and human service settings. Three phases of research were conducted: a literature review, structured expert interviews, and consensus building. Interviews with implementation experts were used to validate a set of implementation constructs identified in the literature\\n review as strongly and consistently related to successful implementation of EBIs in international contexts. A modified Delphi approach was used with a technical working group (TWG) of federal staff to agree on the constructs most relevant for federally funded EBIs. Findings:This\\n process yielded 11 constructs related to either the intervention, the intersection between the invention and context, or the implementation process. These constructs are areas of interest when integrating research evidence into routine practice. Expert interviewees recommended establishing\\n clear, consistent construct definitions before developing valid, feasible measures of the constructs. In contrast to the numerous and specific constructs advanced by researchers, federal TWG members favoured fewer constructs with more generalisability. Discussion and conclusions:This\\n article demonstrates the translation work required for policy contexts and highlights a successful approach to translate evidence from implementation science research for federal staff.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"375-392\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418X15409834211096\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418X15409834211096","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:寻求最大限度发挥其影响的联邦机构和其他供资机构旨在了解与实施循证干预措施(ebi)有关的因素,以解决健康问题。然而,由于不同领域使用不同的术语、框架和措施,在综合来自不同学科的信息并就这些因素达成一致方面存在挑战。方法:采用混合方法来确定一套有助于在卫生和人类服务环境中选择、监测和支持联邦补助金的实施结构。研究进行了三个阶段:文献综述、结构化专家访谈和建立共识。与实施专家的访谈用于验证文献综述中确定的一组实施结构,这些结构与国际背景下ebi的成功实施密切相关。一个由联邦工作人员组成的技术工作组(TWG)采用了一种改进的德尔菲方法,就与联邦资助的ebi最相关的结构达成一致。结果:这一过程产生了11个与干预、发明和情境之间的交集或实施过程相关的构念。当将研究证据整合到日常实践中时,这些结构是感兴趣的领域。专家受访者建议,在制定有效、可行的构式措施之前,先建立清晰、一致的构式定义。与研究人员提出的大量和特定的构念相比,联邦TWG成员倾向于较少的构念,但更具普遍性。讨论和结论:本文展示了政策背景所需的翻译工作,并强调了为联邦工作人员翻译实施科学研究证据的成功方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Important implementation constructs for federal agencies in health and human service settings that are selecting, monitoring, and supporting grantees
Background:Federal agencies and other funders seeking to maximise their impact aim to understand factors associated with implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to address health problems. Challenges exist, however, in synthesising information from different disciplines and reaching agreement about these factors due to different terminology, frameworks, and measures being used in different fields. Methods:A mixed-methods approach was used to identifying a set of implementation constructs helpful for selecting, monitoring, and supporting federal grantees in health and human service settings. Three phases of research were conducted: a literature review, structured expert interviews, and consensus building. Interviews with implementation experts were used to validate a set of implementation constructs identified in the literature review as strongly and consistently related to successful implementation of EBIs in international contexts. A modified Delphi approach was used with a technical working group (TWG) of federal staff to agree on the constructs most relevant for federally funded EBIs. Findings:This process yielded 11 constructs related to either the intervention, the intersection between the invention and context, or the implementation process. These constructs are areas of interest when integrating research evidence into routine practice. Expert interviewees recommended establishing clear, consistent construct definitions before developing valid, feasible measures of the constructs. In contrast to the numerous and specific constructs advanced by researchers, federal TWG members favoured fewer constructs with more generalisability. Discussion and conclusions:This article demonstrates the translation work required for policy contexts and highlights a successful approach to translate evidence from implementation science research for federal staff.
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
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