Implementation Science最新文献

Background/aims: The measurement of implementation outcomes can establish the success of implementing evidence into practice. However, implementation outcomes are seldom measured in acute healthcare settings, such as Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU), and if they are used, are likely to be non-validated, site or intervention-specific measures. To address this literature gap, this systematic review of systematic reviews aims to identify validated instruments to measure implementation outcomes of new EBP interventions in a PICU setting.

Methods: A systematic review of systematic reviews was conducted in two phases. Phase One: Five electronic databases were searched between 06/10/22 and 14/10/22. Systematic reviews were selected using pre-determined eligibility criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool and a data extraction table was used to allow further synthesis. Phase Two: Secondary eligibility criteria were used to extract and review instruments from the systematic reviews selected in Phase One. Instruments were analysed and mapped to the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results: Phase One: Searches resulted in 3195 unique papers. Five systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion. All examined the psychometric properties of each instrument, utilising different methods to do so; three considered their pragmatic or usability properties; and one identified instruments that were transferrable to different settings. Each systematic review identified that most included instruments had limited evidence of their validity or reliability and had poor psychometric properties. Phase two: 93 instruments were screened, and nine were eligible for analysis. After analysis and CFIR mapping, two instruments were identified as potentially adaptable to the PICU setting.

Conclusions: The methodological quality of implementation outcome measurement instruments is inadequate, warranting further validation research. Two instruments were identified that cover multiple CFIR domains and have scope to be adapted for use when implementing evidence-based practice into the PICU. Further work is needed to adapt and further validate an instrument for use in practice.

Trial registration: For transparency of procedures and methods, the protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022361638L).

This editorial updates the scope and submission expectations of Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications. We refine our protocol publishing policies and set out new expectations for reporting studies describing determinants and their relationship with implementation outcomes. Our central focus remains on the implementation of evidence-based interventions into healthcare practice and policy. We are most interested in rigorous empirical studies of the implementation of evidence-based healthcare interventions, practices, and policies, and the de-implementation of those that are demonstrated to be of low-value or no benefit. Alongside this, we remain interested in the systematic study of implementation mechanisms and processes and on the influences of patient, professional, and organizational behaviours. Novel theoretical and methodological developments are considered. For all submissions, we expect authors to demonstrate how their work is integrated with existing knowledge in the field and to clearly state the added value of the work to the field broadly.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact in the global research production and has also increased research waste. Living evidence syntheses (LESs) seek to regularly update a body of evidence addressing a specific question. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the production and dissemination of LESs emerged as a cornerstone of the evidence infrastructure. This critical interpretive synthesis answers the questions: What constitutes an LES to support decision-making?; when should one be produced, updated, and discontinued?; and how should one be disseminated?

Methods: Searches included the Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), Health Systems Evidence, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and Web of Science up to 23 April 2024 and included articles that provide any insights on addressing the compass questions on LESs. Articles were selected and appraised, and their insights extracted. An interpretive and iterative coding process was used to identify relevant thematic categories and create a conceptual framework.

Results: Among the 16,630 non-duplicate records identified, 208 publications proved eligible. Most were non-empirical articles, followed by actual LESs. Approximately one in three articles were published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework addresses six thematic categories: (1) what is an LES; (2) what methodological approaches facilitate LESs production; (3) when to produce an LES; (4) when to update an LES; (5) how to make available the findings of an LES; and (6) when to discontinue LES updates.

Conclusion: LESs can play a critical role in reducing research waste and ensuring alignment with advisory and decision-making processes. This critical interpretive synthesis provides relevant insights on how to better organize the global evidence architecture to support their production.

Trial registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD42021241875.

Background: A dramatic decline in mental health of people worldwide in the early COVID-19 pandemic years has not recovered. In rural and remote Australia, access to appropriate and timely mental health services has been identified as a major barrier to people seeking help for mental ill-health. From 2020 to 2021 a care navigation model, Navicare, was co-designed with rural and remote communities in the Greater Whitsunday Region of Central Queensland in Australia. The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) framework was used to design and guide multiple aspects of a multisite study, The Bridging Study, to evaluate the implementation of Navicare in Australia.

Methods: A community-engaged hybrid effectiveness-implementation study design will focus on the tailored implementation of Navicare at three new sites as well as monitoring implementation at an existing site established since 2021. Study outcomes assessed will include sustained access as the co-primary outcome (measured using access to Navicare mental health referral services) and Proctor's Implementation Outcomes of feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, fidelity, implementation cost, and sustainability. Data collection for the implementation evaluation will include service usage data, community consultations, interviews, and workshops; analysed using mixed methods and guided by EPIS and other implementation frameworks. Pre-post effectiveness and cost-consequence study components are embedded in the implementation and sustainment phases, with comparison to pre-implementation data and value assessed for each EPIS phase using hospital, service, and resource allocation data. A scaling up strategy will be co-developed using a national roundtable forum in the final year of the study. Qualitative exploration of other aspects of the study (e.g., mechanisms of action and stakeholder engagement) will be conducted.

Discussion: Our study will use tailoring to local sites and a community-engaged approach to drive implementation of a mental health care navigation service in rural and remote Australia, with expected benefits to mental healthcare access. This approach is consistent with policy recommendations nationally and internationally as building blocks for rural health including the World Health Organization Framework for Action on Strengthening Health Systems to Improve Health Outcomes.

Trial registration: Prospectively registered on April 2, 2024, on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, no. ACTRN12624000382572. https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=386665&isReview=true .

Background: Germline genetic testing is recommended for an increasing number of conditions with underlying genetic etiologies, the results of which impact medical management. However, genetic testing is underutilized in clinics due to system, clinician, and patient level barriers. Behavioral economics provides a framework to create implementation strategies, such as nudges, to address these multi-level barriers and increase the uptake of genetic testing for conditions where the results impact medical management.

Methods: Patients meeting eligibility for germline genetic testing for a group of conditions will be identified using electronic phenotyping algorithms. A pragmatic, type 3 hybrid cluster randomization study will test nudges to patients and/or clinicians, or neither. Clinicians who receive nudges will be prompted to either refer their patient to genetics or order genetic testing themselves. We will use rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences, health equity, and behavioral economics to optimize these nudges before trial initiation. The primary implementation outcome is uptake of germline genetic testing for the pre-selected health conditions. Patient data collected through the electronic health record (e.g. demographics, geocoded address) will be examined as moderators of the effect of nudges.

Discussion: This study will be one of the first randomized trials to examine the effects of patient- and clinician-directed nudges informed by behavioral economics on uptake of genetic testing. The pragmatic design will facilitate a large and diverse patient sample, allow for the assessment of genetic testing uptake, and provide comparison of the effect of different nudge combinations. This trial also involves optimization of patient identification, test selection, ordering, and result reporting in an electronic health record-based infrastructure to further address clinician-level barriers to utilizing genomic medicine. The findings may help determine the impact of low-cost, sustainable implementation strategies that can be integrated into health care systems to improve the use of genomic medicine.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT06377033. Registered on March 31, 2024. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06377033?term=NCT06377033&rank=1.