寻找合适的剂量:一项范围审查,检查促进作为循证卒中治疗的实施策略。

IF 8.8 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Implementation Science Pub Date : 2025-01-13 DOI:10.1186/s13012-025-01415-w
Oyebola Fasugba, Heilok Cheng, Simeon Dale, Kelly Coughlan, Elizabeth McInnes, Dominique A Cadilhac, Ngai W Cheung, Kelvin Hill, Kirsty Page, Estela Sanjuan Menendez, Emily Neal, Vivien Pollnow, Julia Slark, Eileen Gilder, Anna Ranta, Christopher Levi, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Sandy Middleton
{"title":"寻找合适的剂量:一项范围审查,检查促进作为循证卒中治疗的实施策略。","authors":"Oyebola Fasugba, Heilok Cheng, Simeon Dale, Kelly Coughlan, Elizabeth McInnes, Dominique A Cadilhac, Ngai W Cheung, Kelvin Hill, Kirsty Page, Estela Sanjuan Menendez, Emily Neal, Vivien Pollnow, Julia Slark, Eileen Gilder, Anna Ranta, Christopher Levi, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Sandy Middleton","doi":"10.1186/s13012-025-01415-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite evidence supporting interventions that improve outcomes for patients with stroke, their implementation remains suboptimal. Facilitation can support implementation of research into clinical practice by helping people develop the strategies to implement change. However, variability in the amount (dose) and type of facilitation activities/facilitator roles that make up the facilitation strategies (content), may affect the effectiveness of facilitation. This review aimed to determine if, and how, facilitation dose is measured or reported and the type of facilitation strategies used to support adoption of stroke interventions in hospitals and subacute settings. We also assessed whether the included studies had reporting checklists or guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The scoping review was based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Cochrane, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify randomised trials and quasi-experimental studies of stroke interventions published between January 2017 and July 2023. Accompanying publications (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods or process evaluation papers) from eligible studies were also included. Narrative data synthesis was undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies (23 papers) from 649 full-text papers met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies reported the total facilitation dose, measured as the frequency and duration of facilitation encounters. Authors of the remaining eight studies reported only the frequency and/or duration of varying facilitation activities but not the total dose. The facilitation activities included remote external facilitator support via ongoing telecommunication (phone calls, emails, teleconferences), continuous engagement from on-site internal facilitators, face-to-face workshops and/or education sessions from external or internal facilitators. Facilitator roles were broad: site-specific briefing, action planning and/or goal setting; identifying enablers and barriers to change; coaching, training, education or feedback; and network support. Only two studies included reporting checklists/guidelines to support researchers to describe interventions and implementation studies in sufficient detail to enable replication.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a paucity of information on the measurement of facilitation dose and reporting on specific details of facilitation activities in stroke implementation studies. Detailed reporting of dose and content is needed to improve the scientific basis of facilitation as strategic support to enable improvements to stroke care. Development of a standardised measurement approach for facilitation dose would inform future research and translation of findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":54995,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science","volume":"20 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11731140/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Finding the right dose: a scoping review examining facilitation as an implementation strategy for evidence-based stroke care.\",\"authors\":\"Oyebola Fasugba, Heilok Cheng, Simeon Dale, Kelly Coughlan, Elizabeth McInnes, Dominique A Cadilhac, Ngai W Cheung, Kelvin Hill, Kirsty Page, Estela Sanjuan Menendez, Emily Neal, Vivien Pollnow, Julia Slark, Eileen Gilder, Anna Ranta, Christopher Levi, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Sandy Middleton\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13012-025-01415-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite evidence supporting interventions that improve outcomes for patients with stroke, their implementation remains suboptimal. Facilitation can support implementation of research into clinical practice by helping people develop the strategies to implement change. However, variability in the amount (dose) and type of facilitation activities/facilitator roles that make up the facilitation strategies (content), may affect the effectiveness of facilitation. This review aimed to determine if, and how, facilitation dose is measured or reported and the type of facilitation strategies used to support adoption of stroke interventions in hospitals and subacute settings. We also assessed whether the included studies had reporting checklists or guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The scoping review was based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Cochrane, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify randomised trials and quasi-experimental studies of stroke interventions published between January 2017 and July 2023. Accompanying publications (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods or process evaluation papers) from eligible studies were also included. Narrative data synthesis was undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies (23 papers) from 649 full-text papers met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies reported the total facilitation dose, measured as the frequency and duration of facilitation encounters. Authors of the remaining eight studies reported only the frequency and/or duration of varying facilitation activities but not the total dose. The facilitation activities included remote external facilitator support via ongoing telecommunication (phone calls, emails, teleconferences), continuous engagement from on-site internal facilitators, face-to-face workshops and/or education sessions from external or internal facilitators. Facilitator roles were broad: site-specific briefing, action planning and/or goal setting; identifying enablers and barriers to change; coaching, training, education or feedback; and network support. Only two studies included reporting checklists/guidelines to support researchers to describe interventions and implementation studies in sufficient detail to enable replication.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a paucity of information on the measurement of facilitation dose and reporting on specific details of facilitation activities in stroke implementation studies. Detailed reporting of dose and content is needed to improve the scientific basis of facilitation as strategic support to enable improvements to stroke care. Development of a standardised measurement approach for facilitation dose would inform future research and translation of findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation Science\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11731140/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-025-01415-w\",\"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/s13012-025-01415-w","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:尽管有证据支持干预措施可以改善脑卒中患者的预后,但其实施仍然不够理想。促进可以通过帮助人们制定实施变革的策略来支持将研究实施到临床实践中。然而,组成促进策略(内容)的促进活动/促进者角色的数量(剂量)和类型的可变性可能会影响促进的有效性。本综述旨在确定是否以及如何测量或报告促进剂量,以及在医院和亚急性环境中用于支持卒中干预措施的促进策略类型。我们还评估了纳入的研究是否有报告清单或指南。方法:根据Arksey和O'Malley的框架进行范围综述。检索Cochrane、CINAHL和MEDLINE数据库,以确定2017年1月至2023年7月间发表的卒中干预的随机试验和准实验研究。同时纳入了符合条件的研究的相关出版物(定量、定性、混合方法或过程评价论文)。进行了叙述性数据综合。结果:649篇全文论文中有10篇研究(23篇)符合纳入标准。只有两项研究报告了总促进剂量,以促进接触的频率和持续时间来衡量。其余8项研究的作者只报告了不同促进活动的频率和/或持续时间,而没有报告总剂量。促进活动包括通过持续的电信(电话、电子邮件、电话会议)提供远程外部促进者支持,现场内部促进者的持续参与,外部或内部促进者的面对面讲习班和/或教育课程。推动者的角色很广泛:具体地点的简报、行动计划和/或目标设定;识别变革的推动因素和障碍;辅导、培训、教育或反馈;还有网络支持。只有两项研究包括报告清单/指南,以支持研究人员足够详细地描述干预措施和实施研究,以便进行复制。结论:在脑卒中实施研究中,关于促进剂量的测量和促进活动的具体细节报道的信息缺乏。需要详细报告剂量和含量,以改善促进的科学基础,作为改善卒中护理的战略支持。制定促进剂量的标准化测量方法将为今后的研究和结果的转化提供信息。
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
Finding the right dose: a scoping review examining facilitation as an implementation strategy for evidence-based stroke care.

Background: Despite evidence supporting interventions that improve outcomes for patients with stroke, their implementation remains suboptimal. Facilitation can support implementation of research into clinical practice by helping people develop the strategies to implement change. However, variability in the amount (dose) and type of facilitation activities/facilitator roles that make up the facilitation strategies (content), may affect the effectiveness of facilitation. This review aimed to determine if, and how, facilitation dose is measured or reported and the type of facilitation strategies used to support adoption of stroke interventions in hospitals and subacute settings. We also assessed whether the included studies had reporting checklists or guidelines.

Methods: The scoping review was based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Cochrane, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify randomised trials and quasi-experimental studies of stroke interventions published between January 2017 and July 2023. Accompanying publications (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods or process evaluation papers) from eligible studies were also included. Narrative data synthesis was undertaken.

Results: Ten studies (23 papers) from 649 full-text papers met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies reported the total facilitation dose, measured as the frequency and duration of facilitation encounters. Authors of the remaining eight studies reported only the frequency and/or duration of varying facilitation activities but not the total dose. The facilitation activities included remote external facilitator support via ongoing telecommunication (phone calls, emails, teleconferences), continuous engagement from on-site internal facilitators, face-to-face workshops and/or education sessions from external or internal facilitators. Facilitator roles were broad: site-specific briefing, action planning and/or goal setting; identifying enablers and barriers to change; coaching, training, education or feedback; and network support. Only two studies included reporting checklists/guidelines to support researchers to describe interventions and implementation studies in sufficient detail to enable replication.

Conclusions: There is a paucity of information on the measurement of facilitation dose and reporting on specific details of facilitation activities in stroke implementation studies. Detailed reporting of dose and content is needed to improve the scientific basis of facilitation as strategic support to enable improvements to stroke care. Development of a standardised measurement approach for facilitation dose would inform future research and translation of findings.

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
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. Optimizing vaccine uptake in sub-Saharan Africa: a collaborative COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Madagascar using an adaptive approach.
×
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