Cargando…

T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool

BACKGROUND: Theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) are foundational for generalizing implementation efforts and research findings. However, TMF and the criteria used to select them are not often described in published articles, perhaps due in part to the challenge of selecting from among the many TM...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Birken, Sarah A., Rohweder, Catherine L., Powell, Byron J., Shea, Christopher M., Scott, Jennifer, Leeman, Jennifer, Grewe, Mary E., Alexis Kirk, M., Damschroder, Laura, Aldridge, William A., Haines, Emily R., Straus, Sharon, Presseau, Justin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6251099/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30466450
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4
_version_ 1783373045916762112
author Birken, Sarah A.
Rohweder, Catherine L.
Powell, Byron J.
Shea, Christopher M.
Scott, Jennifer
Leeman, Jennifer
Grewe, Mary E.
Alexis Kirk, M.
Damschroder, Laura
Aldridge, William A.
Haines, Emily R.
Straus, Sharon
Presseau, Justin
author_facet Birken, Sarah A.
Rohweder, Catherine L.
Powell, Byron J.
Shea, Christopher M.
Scott, Jennifer
Leeman, Jennifer
Grewe, Mary E.
Alexis Kirk, M.
Damschroder, Laura
Aldridge, William A.
Haines, Emily R.
Straus, Sharon
Presseau, Justin
author_sort Birken, Sarah A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) are foundational for generalizing implementation efforts and research findings. However, TMF and the criteria used to select them are not often described in published articles, perhaps due in part to the challenge of selecting from among the many TMF that exist in the field. The objective of this international study was to develop a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide their implementation projects. METHODS: Implementation scientists across the USA, the UK, and Canada identified and rated conceptually distinct categories of criteria in a concept mapping exercise. We then used the concept mapping results to develop a tool to help users select appropriate TMF for their projects. We assessed the tool’s usefulness through expert consensus and cognitive and semi-structured interviews with implementation scientists. RESULTS: Thirty-seven implementation scientists (19 researchers and 18 practitioners) identified four criteria domains: usability, testability, applicability, and familiarity. We then developed a prototype of the tool that included a list of 25 criteria organized by domain, definitions of the criteria, and a case example illustrating an application of the tool. Results of cognitive and semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for the tool to (1) be as succinct as possible; (2) have separate versions to meet the unique needs of researchers versus practitioners; (3) include easily understood terms; (4) include an introduction that clearly describes the tool’s purpose and benefits; (5) provide space for noting project information, comparing and scoring TMF, and accommodating contributions from multiple team members; and (6) include more case examples illustrating its application. Interview participants agreed that the tool (1) offered them a way to select from among candidate TMF, (2) helped them be explicit about the criteria that they used to select a TMF, and (3) enabled them to compare, select from among, and/or consider the usefulness of combining multiple TMF. These revisions resulted in the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST), a paper and web-enabled tool that includes 16 specific criteria that can be used to consider and justify the selection of TMF for a given project. Criteria are organized within four categories: applicability, usability, testability, and acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: T-CaST is a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide implementation projects. Additionally, T-CaST has the potential to promote transparent reporting of criteria used to select TMF within and beyond the field of implementation science. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6251099
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62510992018-11-26 T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool Birken, Sarah A. Rohweder, Catherine L. Powell, Byron J. Shea, Christopher M. Scott, Jennifer Leeman, Jennifer Grewe, Mary E. Alexis Kirk, M. Damschroder, Laura Aldridge, William A. Haines, Emily R. Straus, Sharon Presseau, Justin Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: Theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) are foundational for generalizing implementation efforts and research findings. However, TMF and the criteria used to select them are not often described in published articles, perhaps due in part to the challenge of selecting from among the many TMF that exist in the field. The objective of this international study was to develop a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide their implementation projects. METHODS: Implementation scientists across the USA, the UK, and Canada identified and rated conceptually distinct categories of criteria in a concept mapping exercise. We then used the concept mapping results to develop a tool to help users select appropriate TMF for their projects. We assessed the tool’s usefulness through expert consensus and cognitive and semi-structured interviews with implementation scientists. RESULTS: Thirty-seven implementation scientists (19 researchers and 18 practitioners) identified four criteria domains: usability, testability, applicability, and familiarity. We then developed a prototype of the tool that included a list of 25 criteria organized by domain, definitions of the criteria, and a case example illustrating an application of the tool. Results of cognitive and semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for the tool to (1) be as succinct as possible; (2) have separate versions to meet the unique needs of researchers versus practitioners; (3) include easily understood terms; (4) include an introduction that clearly describes the tool’s purpose and benefits; (5) provide space for noting project information, comparing and scoring TMF, and accommodating contributions from multiple team members; and (6) include more case examples illustrating its application. Interview participants agreed that the tool (1) offered them a way to select from among candidate TMF, (2) helped them be explicit about the criteria that they used to select a TMF, and (3) enabled them to compare, select from among, and/or consider the usefulness of combining multiple TMF. These revisions resulted in the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST), a paper and web-enabled tool that includes 16 specific criteria that can be used to consider and justify the selection of TMF for a given project. Criteria are organized within four categories: applicability, usability, testability, and acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: T-CaST is a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide implementation projects. Additionally, T-CaST has the potential to promote transparent reporting of criteria used to select TMF within and beyond the field of implementation science. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6251099/ /pubmed/30466450 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 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 Research
Birken, Sarah A.
Rohweder, Catherine L.
Powell, Byron J.
Shea, Christopher M.
Scott, Jennifer
Leeman, Jennifer
Grewe, Mary E.
Alexis Kirk, M.
Damschroder, Laura
Aldridge, William A.
Haines, Emily R.
Straus, Sharon
Presseau, Justin
T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool
title T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool
title_full T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool
title_fullStr T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool
title_full_unstemmed T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool
title_short T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool
title_sort t-cast: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6251099/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30466450
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4
work_keys_str_mv AT birkensaraha tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT rohwedercatherinel tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT powellbyronj tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT sheachristopherm tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT scottjennifer tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT leemanjennifer tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT grewemarye tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT alexiskirkm tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT damschroderlaura tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT aldridgewilliama tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT hainesemilyr tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT straussharon tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool
AT presseaujustin tcastanimplementationtheorycomparisonandselectiontool