哪些衡量执行结果的有效工具适合在儿童重症监护室(PICU)环境中使用?对系统综述的系统综述。

IF 8.8 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Implementation Science Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.1186/s13012-024-01378-4
Elizabeth Dodds, Sarah Redsell, Stephen Timmons, Joseph C Manning
{"title":"哪些衡量执行结果的有效工具适合在儿童重症监护室(PICU)环境中使用?对系统综述的系统综述。","authors":"Elizabeth Dodds, Sarah Redsell, Stephen Timmons, Joseph C Manning","doi":"10.1186/s13012-024-01378-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>For transparency of procedures and methods, the protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022361638L).</p>","PeriodicalId":54995,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science","volume":"19 1","pages":"70"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11466035/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What validated instruments, that measure implementation outcomes, are suitable for use in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) setting? A systematic review of systematic reviews.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Dodds, Sarah Redsell, Stephen Timmons, Joseph C Manning\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13012-024-01378-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>For transparency of procedures and methods, the protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022361638L).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation Science\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11466035/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01378-4\",\"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/s13012-024-01378-4","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/目的:对实施结果的衡量可以确定将证据应用于实践的成功与否。然而,在儿科重症监护病房(PICU)等急症医疗环境中,很少对实施结果进行测量,即使使用,也可能是未经验证的、针对特定场所或干预措施的测量方法。为了填补这一文献空白,本系统综述旨在确定有效的工具,以衡量新的 EBP 干预措施在 PICU 环境中的实施结果:方法:分两个阶段对系统综述进行系统综述。第一阶段:2012 年 10 月 6 日至 10 月 14 日期间搜索了五个电子数据库。根据预先确定的资格标准筛选出系统综述。使用 "批判性评估技能计划 "工具对方法学质量进行评估,并使用数据提取表进行进一步综合。第二阶段:使用二级资格标准从第一阶段选定的系统性综述中提取并审查工具。对工具进行分析,并将其映射到实施研究综合框架(CFIR):第一阶段:通过检索,共找到 3195 篇论文。五篇系统综述符合纳入条件。所有综述都研究了每种工具的心理测量特性,并采用了不同的方法;三篇综述考虑了工具的实用性或可用性;一篇综述确定了可用于不同环境的工具。每篇系统性综述都指出,大多数工具的有效性或可靠性证据有限,心理测量特性较差。第二阶段:共筛选出 93 项工具,其中 9 项符合分析条件。经过分析和CFIR图谱绘制,有两种工具被认为可能适用于PICU环境:结论:实施结果测量工具的方法学质量不足,需要进一步验证研究。已确定的两种工具涵盖多个 CFIR 领域,在 PICU 中实施循证实践时有调整使用的余地。需要进一步开展工作,调整并进一步验证在实践中使用的工具:为提高程序和方法的透明度,本系统综述的方案已在 PROSPERO 注册(注册号为 CRD42022361638L)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What validated instruments, that measure implementation outcomes, are suitable for use in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) setting? A systematic review of systematic reviews.

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).

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.
期刊最新文献
Training and education provided to local change champions within implementation trials: a rapid systematic review. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of ECHO and coaching implementation strategies in a jail/provider MOUD implementation trial. Looking under the hood of a hybrid two-way texting intervention to improve early retention on antiretroviral therapy in Malawi: an implementation fidelity evaluation. Improving the adoption of a school-based nutrition program: findings from a collaborative network of randomised trials. Finding the right dose: a scoping review examining facilitation as an implementation strategy for evidence-based stroke care.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1