Prospective application of theoretical implementation frameworks to improve health care in hospitals — a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Health Service implementation projects are often guided by theoretical implementation frameworks. Little is known about the effectiveness of these frameworks to facilitate change in processes of care and patient outcomes within the inpatient setting. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of theoretical implementation frameworks in inpatient healthcare settings to change processes of care and associated patient outcomes. METHOD: We conducted a search in CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EMCARE and Cochrane Library databases from 1(st) January 1995 to 15(th) June 2021. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to potentially eligible studies. Eligible studies: implemented evidence-based care into an in-patient setting using a theoretical implementation framework applied prospectively; used a prospective study design; presented process of care or patient outcomes; and were published in English. We extracted theoretical implementation frameworks and study design against the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) Checklist and implementation strategies mapped to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. We summarised all interventions using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. We appraised study quality using the Item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for cluster randomised trials. We extracted process of care and patient outcomes and described descriptively. We conducted meta-analysis for process of care and patient outcomes with reference to framework category. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one used a pre-post (no comparison), two a pre-post with a comparison, and two a cluster randomised trial design. Eleven theoretical implementation frameworks were prospectively applied: six process models; five determinant frameworks; and one classic theory. Four studies used two theoretical implementation frameworks. No authors reported their justification for selecting a particular framework and implementation strategies were generally poorly described. No consensus was reached for a preferred framework or subset of frameworks based on meta-analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than the ongoing development of new implementation frameworks, a more consistent approach to framework selection and strengthening of existing approaches is recommended to further develop the implementation evidence base. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019119429. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-023-09609-y.