Cargando…
Measuring implementation: development of the implementation process assessment tool (IPAT)
BACKGROUND: Implementation science comprises a large set of theories suggesting interacting factors at different organisational levels. Development of literature syntheses and frameworks for implementation have contributed to comprehensive descriptions of implementation. However, corresponding instr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805659/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638967 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4496-0 |
_version_ | 1783461443202449408 |
---|---|
author | Hartveit, M. Hovlid, E. Nordin, M. H. A. Øvretveit, J. Bond, G. R. Biringer, E. Assmus, J. Mariniusson, G. H. Ruud, T. |
author_facet | Hartveit, M. Hovlid, E. Nordin, M. H. A. Øvretveit, J. Bond, G. R. Biringer, E. Assmus, J. Mariniusson, G. H. Ruud, T. |
author_sort | Hartveit, M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Implementation science comprises a large set of theories suggesting interacting factors at different organisational levels. Development of literature syntheses and frameworks for implementation have contributed to comprehensive descriptions of implementation. However, corresponding instruments for measuring these comprehensive descriptions are currently lacking. The present study aimed to develop an instrument measuring care providers’ perceptions of an implementation effort, and to explore the instrument’s psychometric properties. METHODS: Based on existing implementation literature, a questionnaire was designed with items on individual and team factors and on stages of change in an implementation process. The instrument was tested in a Norwegian study on implementation of evidence based practices for psychosis. Item analysis, factor structure, and internal consistency at baseline were examined. RESULTS: The 27-item Implementation Process Assessment Tool (IPAT) revealed large variation between mean score of the items. The total scale scores were widely dispersed across respondents. Internal consistency for the total scale was high (Cronbach’s alpha: .962), and all but one item contributed positively to the construct. The results indicated four underlying constructs: individual stages for behavioural change, individual activities and perceived support, collective readiness and support, and individual perceptions of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The IPAT appears to be a feasible instrument for investigating the implementation process from the perspective of those making the change. It can enable examination of the relative importance of factors thought to be essential for implementation outcomes. It may also provide ongoing feedback for leaders tailoring support for teams to improve implementation. However, further research is needed to detect the instrument’s properties later in the implementation process and in different contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov code NCT03271242 (retrospective registered September 5, 2017). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4496-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6805659 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68056592019-10-24 Measuring implementation: development of the implementation process assessment tool (IPAT) Hartveit, M. Hovlid, E. Nordin, M. H. A. Øvretveit, J. Bond, G. R. Biringer, E. Assmus, J. Mariniusson, G. H. Ruud, T. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Implementation science comprises a large set of theories suggesting interacting factors at different organisational levels. Development of literature syntheses and frameworks for implementation have contributed to comprehensive descriptions of implementation. However, corresponding instruments for measuring these comprehensive descriptions are currently lacking. The present study aimed to develop an instrument measuring care providers’ perceptions of an implementation effort, and to explore the instrument’s psychometric properties. METHODS: Based on existing implementation literature, a questionnaire was designed with items on individual and team factors and on stages of change in an implementation process. The instrument was tested in a Norwegian study on implementation of evidence based practices for psychosis. Item analysis, factor structure, and internal consistency at baseline were examined. RESULTS: The 27-item Implementation Process Assessment Tool (IPAT) revealed large variation between mean score of the items. The total scale scores were widely dispersed across respondents. Internal consistency for the total scale was high (Cronbach’s alpha: .962), and all but one item contributed positively to the construct. The results indicated four underlying constructs: individual stages for behavioural change, individual activities and perceived support, collective readiness and support, and individual perceptions of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The IPAT appears to be a feasible instrument for investigating the implementation process from the perspective of those making the change. It can enable examination of the relative importance of factors thought to be essential for implementation outcomes. It may also provide ongoing feedback for leaders tailoring support for teams to improve implementation. However, further research is needed to detect the instrument’s properties later in the implementation process and in different contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov code NCT03271242 (retrospective registered September 5, 2017). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4496-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6805659/ /pubmed/31638967 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4496-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 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 Article Hartveit, M. Hovlid, E. Nordin, M. H. A. Øvretveit, J. Bond, G. R. Biringer, E. Assmus, J. Mariniusson, G. H. Ruud, T. Measuring implementation: development of the implementation process assessment tool (IPAT) |
title | Measuring implementation: development of the implementation process assessment tool (IPAT) |
title_full | Measuring implementation: development of the implementation process assessment tool (IPAT) |
title_fullStr | Measuring implementation: development of the implementation process assessment tool (IPAT) |
title_full_unstemmed | Measuring implementation: development of the implementation process assessment tool (IPAT) |
title_short | Measuring implementation: development of the implementation process assessment tool (IPAT) |
title_sort | measuring implementation: development of the implementation process assessment tool (ipat) |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805659/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638967 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4496-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hartveitm measuringimplementationdevelopmentoftheimplementationprocessassessmenttoolipat AT hovlide measuringimplementationdevelopmentoftheimplementationprocessassessmenttoolipat AT nordinmha measuringimplementationdevelopmentoftheimplementationprocessassessmenttoolipat AT øvretveitj measuringimplementationdevelopmentoftheimplementationprocessassessmenttoolipat AT bondgr measuringimplementationdevelopmentoftheimplementationprocessassessmenttoolipat AT biringere measuringimplementationdevelopmentoftheimplementationprocessassessmenttoolipat AT assmusj measuringimplementationdevelopmentoftheimplementationprocessassessmenttoolipat AT mariniussongh measuringimplementationdevelopmentoftheimplementationprocessassessmenttoolipat AT ruudt measuringimplementationdevelopmentoftheimplementationprocessassessmenttoolipat |