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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |