Cargando…

Engaging stakeholders in the co-development of programs or interventions using Intervention Mapping: A scoping review

BACKGROUND: Health care innovations tailored to stakeholder context are more readily adopted. This study aimed to describe how Intervention Mapping (IM) was used to design health care innovations and how stakeholders were involved. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane L...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Majid, Umair, Kim, Claire, Cako, Albina, Gagliardi, Anna R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6306258/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30586425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209826
_version_ 1783382742316089344
author Majid, Umair
Kim, Claire
Cako, Albina
Gagliardi, Anna R.
author_facet Majid, Umair
Kim, Claire
Cako, Albina
Gagliardi, Anna R.
author_sort Majid, Umair
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Health care innovations tailored to stakeholder context are more readily adopted. This study aimed to describe how Intervention Mapping (IM) was used to design health care innovations and how stakeholders were involved. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Science Citation Index were searched from 2008 to November 2017. English language studies that used or cited Intervention Mapping were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in triplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics, IM steps employed, and stakeholder involvement. RESULTS: A total of 852 studies were identified, 449 were unique, and 333 were excluded based on title and abstracts, 116 full-text articles were considered and 61 articles representing 60 studies from 13 countries for a variety of clinical issues were included. The number of studies published per year increased since 2008 and doubled in 2016 and 2017. The majority of studies employed multiple research methods (76.7%) and all 6 IM steps (73.3%). Resulting programs/interventions were single (55.4%) or multifaceted (46.4%), and 60.7% were pilot-tested. Programs or interventions were largely educational material or meetings, and were targeted to patients (70.2%), clinicians (14.0%) or both (15.8%). Studies provided few details about current or planned evaluation. Of the 4 (9.3%) studies that reported impact or outcomes, 3 achieved positive improvements in patient or professional behaviour or patient outcomes. Many studies (28.3%) did not involve stakeholders. Those that did (71.7%) often involved a combination of patients, clinicians, and community organizations. However, less than half (48.8%) described how they were engaged. Most often stakeholders were committee members and provide feedback on program or intervention content or format. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear if use of IM or stakeholder engagement in IM consistently results in effective programs or interventions. Those employing IM should report how stakeholders were involved in each IM step and how involvement influenced program or intervention design. They should also report the details or absence of planned evaluation. Future research should investigate how to optimize stakeholder engagement in IM, and whether use of IM itself or stakeholder engagement in IM are positively associated with effective programs or interventions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6306258
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63062582019-01-08 Engaging stakeholders in the co-development of programs or interventions using Intervention Mapping: A scoping review Majid, Umair Kim, Claire Cako, Albina Gagliardi, Anna R. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Health care innovations tailored to stakeholder context are more readily adopted. This study aimed to describe how Intervention Mapping (IM) was used to design health care innovations and how stakeholders were involved. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Science Citation Index were searched from 2008 to November 2017. English language studies that used or cited Intervention Mapping were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in triplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics, IM steps employed, and stakeholder involvement. RESULTS: A total of 852 studies were identified, 449 were unique, and 333 were excluded based on title and abstracts, 116 full-text articles were considered and 61 articles representing 60 studies from 13 countries for a variety of clinical issues were included. The number of studies published per year increased since 2008 and doubled in 2016 and 2017. The majority of studies employed multiple research methods (76.7%) and all 6 IM steps (73.3%). Resulting programs/interventions were single (55.4%) or multifaceted (46.4%), and 60.7% were pilot-tested. Programs or interventions were largely educational material or meetings, and were targeted to patients (70.2%), clinicians (14.0%) or both (15.8%). Studies provided few details about current or planned evaluation. Of the 4 (9.3%) studies that reported impact or outcomes, 3 achieved positive improvements in patient or professional behaviour or patient outcomes. Many studies (28.3%) did not involve stakeholders. Those that did (71.7%) often involved a combination of patients, clinicians, and community organizations. However, less than half (48.8%) described how they were engaged. Most often stakeholders were committee members and provide feedback on program or intervention content or format. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear if use of IM or stakeholder engagement in IM consistently results in effective programs or interventions. Those employing IM should report how stakeholders were involved in each IM step and how involvement influenced program or intervention design. They should also report the details or absence of planned evaluation. Future research should investigate how to optimize stakeholder engagement in IM, and whether use of IM itself or stakeholder engagement in IM are positively associated with effective programs or interventions. Public Library of Science 2018-12-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6306258/ /pubmed/30586425 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209826 Text en © 2018 Majid et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Majid, Umair
Kim, Claire
Cako, Albina
Gagliardi, Anna R.
Engaging stakeholders in the co-development of programs or interventions using Intervention Mapping: A scoping review
title Engaging stakeholders in the co-development of programs or interventions using Intervention Mapping: A scoping review
title_full Engaging stakeholders in the co-development of programs or interventions using Intervention Mapping: A scoping review
title_fullStr Engaging stakeholders in the co-development of programs or interventions using Intervention Mapping: A scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Engaging stakeholders in the co-development of programs or interventions using Intervention Mapping: A scoping review
title_short Engaging stakeholders in the co-development of programs or interventions using Intervention Mapping: A scoping review
title_sort engaging stakeholders in the co-development of programs or interventions using intervention mapping: a scoping review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6306258/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30586425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209826
work_keys_str_mv AT majidumair engagingstakeholdersinthecodevelopmentofprogramsorinterventionsusinginterventionmappingascopingreview
AT kimclaire engagingstakeholdersinthecodevelopmentofprogramsorinterventionsusinginterventionmappingascopingreview
AT cakoalbina engagingstakeholdersinthecodevelopmentofprogramsorinterventionsusinginterventionmappingascopingreview
AT gagliardiannar engagingstakeholdersinthecodevelopmentofprogramsorinterventionsusinginterventionmappingascopingreview