Cargando…

Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping

BACKGROUND: Advancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Powell, Byron J., Stanick, Cameo F., Halko, Heather M., Dorsey, Caitlin N., Weiner, Bryan J., Barwick, Melanie A., Damschroder, Laura J., Wensing, Michel, Wolfenden, Luke, Lewis, Cara C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5627503/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28974248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0649-x
_version_ 1783268731126808576
author Powell, Byron J.
Stanick, Cameo F.
Halko, Heather M.
Dorsey, Caitlin N.
Weiner, Bryan J.
Barwick, Melanie A.
Damschroder, Laura J.
Wensing, Michel
Wolfenden, Luke
Lewis, Cara C.
author_facet Powell, Byron J.
Stanick, Cameo F.
Halko, Heather M.
Dorsey, Caitlin N.
Weiner, Bryan J.
Barwick, Melanie A.
Damschroder, Laura J.
Wensing, Michel
Wolfenden, Luke
Lewis, Cara C.
author_sort Powell, Byron J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Advancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpose of this study was to establish a stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the domains that comprise the pragmatic measure construct. It built upon a systematic review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews that generated 47 criteria for pragmatic measures, and aimed to further refine that set of criteria by identifying conceptually distinct categories of the pragmatic measure construct and providing quantitative ratings of the criteria’s clarity and importance. METHODS: Twenty-four stakeholders with expertise in implementation practice completed a concept mapping activity wherein they organized the initial list of 47 criteria into conceptually distinct categories and rated their clarity and importance. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: The 47 criteria were meaningfully grouped into four distinct categories: (1) acceptable, (2) compatible, (3) easy, and (4) useful. Average ratings of clarity and importance at the category and individual criteria level will be presented. CONCLUSIONS: This study advances the field of implementation science and practice by providing clear and conceptually distinct domains of the pragmatic measure construct. Next steps will include a Delphi process to develop consensus on the most important criteria and the development of quantifiable pragmatic rating criteria that can be used to assess measures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5627503
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56275032017-10-12 Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping Powell, Byron J. Stanick, Cameo F. Halko, Heather M. Dorsey, Caitlin N. Weiner, Bryan J. Barwick, Melanie A. Damschroder, Laura J. Wensing, Michel Wolfenden, Luke Lewis, Cara C. Implement Sci Short Report BACKGROUND: Advancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpose of this study was to establish a stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the domains that comprise the pragmatic measure construct. It built upon a systematic review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews that generated 47 criteria for pragmatic measures, and aimed to further refine that set of criteria by identifying conceptually distinct categories of the pragmatic measure construct and providing quantitative ratings of the criteria’s clarity and importance. METHODS: Twenty-four stakeholders with expertise in implementation practice completed a concept mapping activity wherein they organized the initial list of 47 criteria into conceptually distinct categories and rated their clarity and importance. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: The 47 criteria were meaningfully grouped into four distinct categories: (1) acceptable, (2) compatible, (3) easy, and (4) useful. Average ratings of clarity and importance at the category and individual criteria level will be presented. CONCLUSIONS: This study advances the field of implementation science and practice by providing clear and conceptually distinct domains of the pragmatic measure construct. Next steps will include a Delphi process to develop consensus on the most important criteria and the development of quantifiable pragmatic rating criteria that can be used to assess measures. BioMed Central 2017-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5627503/ /pubmed/28974248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0649-x Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Short Report
Powell, Byron J.
Stanick, Cameo F.
Halko, Heather M.
Dorsey, Caitlin N.
Weiner, Bryan J.
Barwick, Melanie A.
Damschroder, Laura J.
Wensing, Michel
Wolfenden, Luke
Lewis, Cara C.
Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
title Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
title_full Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
title_fullStr Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
title_full_unstemmed Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
title_short Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
title_sort toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
topic Short Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5627503/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28974248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0649-x
work_keys_str_mv AT powellbyronj towardcriteriaforpragmaticmeasurementinimplementationresearchandpracticeastakeholderdrivenapproachusingconceptmapping
AT stanickcameof towardcriteriaforpragmaticmeasurementinimplementationresearchandpracticeastakeholderdrivenapproachusingconceptmapping
AT halkoheatherm towardcriteriaforpragmaticmeasurementinimplementationresearchandpracticeastakeholderdrivenapproachusingconceptmapping
AT dorseycaitlinn towardcriteriaforpragmaticmeasurementinimplementationresearchandpracticeastakeholderdrivenapproachusingconceptmapping
AT weinerbryanj towardcriteriaforpragmaticmeasurementinimplementationresearchandpracticeastakeholderdrivenapproachusingconceptmapping
AT barwickmelaniea towardcriteriaforpragmaticmeasurementinimplementationresearchandpracticeastakeholderdrivenapproachusingconceptmapping
AT damschroderlauraj towardcriteriaforpragmaticmeasurementinimplementationresearchandpracticeastakeholderdrivenapproachusingconceptmapping
AT wensingmichel towardcriteriaforpragmaticmeasurementinimplementationresearchandpracticeastakeholderdrivenapproachusingconceptmapping
AT wolfendenluke towardcriteriaforpragmaticmeasurementinimplementationresearchandpracticeastakeholderdrivenapproachusingconceptmapping
AT lewiscarac towardcriteriaforpragmaticmeasurementinimplementationresearchandpracticeastakeholderdrivenapproachusingconceptmapping