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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hartveit, M., Hovlid, E., Nordin, M. H. A., Øvretveit, J., Bond, G. R., Biringer, E., Assmus, J., Mariniusson, G. H., Ruud, T.
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