Cargando…

Ten years of implementation outcome research: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION: A 2011 paper proposed a working taxonomy of implementation outcomes, their conceptual distinctions and a two-pronged research agenda on their role in implementation success. Since then, over 1100 papers citing the manuscript have been published. Our goal is to compare the field’s progr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lengnick-Hall, Rebecca, Proctor, Enola K, Bunger, Alicia C, Gerke, Donald R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8215242/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34145020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049339
_version_ 1783710208789315584
author Lengnick-Hall, Rebecca
Proctor, Enola K
Bunger, Alicia C
Gerke, Donald R
author_facet Lengnick-Hall, Rebecca
Proctor, Enola K
Bunger, Alicia C
Gerke, Donald R
author_sort Lengnick-Hall, Rebecca
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: A 2011 paper proposed a working taxonomy of implementation outcomes, their conceptual distinctions and a two-pronged research agenda on their role in implementation success. Since then, over 1100 papers citing the manuscript have been published. Our goal is to compare the field’s progress to the originally proposed research agenda, and outline recommendations for the next 10 years. To accomplish this, we are conducting the proposed scoping review. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our approach is informed by Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews. We will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We first aim to assess the degree to which each implementation outcome has been investigated in the literature, including healthcare settings, clinical populations and innovations represented. We next aim to describe the relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes. Our last aim is to identify studies that empirically assess relationships among implementation and/or service and client outcomes. We will use a forward citation tracing approach to identify all literature that cited the 2011 paper in the Web of Science (WOS) and will supplement this with citation alerts sent to the second author for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. Our review will focus on empirical studies that are designed to assess at least one of the identified implementation outcomes in the 2011 taxonomy and are published in peer-reviewed journals. We will generate descriptive statistics from extracted data and organise results by these research aims. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No human research participants will be involved in this review. We plan to share findings through a variety of means including peer-reviewed journal publications, national conference presentations, invited workshops and webinars, email listservs affiliated with our institutions and professional associations, and academic social media.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8215242
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82152422021-07-01 Ten years of implementation outcome research: a scoping review protocol Lengnick-Hall, Rebecca Proctor, Enola K Bunger, Alicia C Gerke, Donald R BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice INTRODUCTION: A 2011 paper proposed a working taxonomy of implementation outcomes, their conceptual distinctions and a two-pronged research agenda on their role in implementation success. Since then, over 1100 papers citing the manuscript have been published. Our goal is to compare the field’s progress to the originally proposed research agenda, and outline recommendations for the next 10 years. To accomplish this, we are conducting the proposed scoping review. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our approach is informed by Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews. We will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We first aim to assess the degree to which each implementation outcome has been investigated in the literature, including healthcare settings, clinical populations and innovations represented. We next aim to describe the relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes. Our last aim is to identify studies that empirically assess relationships among implementation and/or service and client outcomes. We will use a forward citation tracing approach to identify all literature that cited the 2011 paper in the Web of Science (WOS) and will supplement this with citation alerts sent to the second author for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. Our review will focus on empirical studies that are designed to assess at least one of the identified implementation outcomes in the 2011 taxonomy and are published in peer-reviewed journals. We will generate descriptive statistics from extracted data and organise results by these research aims. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No human research participants will be involved in this review. We plan to share findings through a variety of means including peer-reviewed journal publications, national conference presentations, invited workshops and webinars, email listservs affiliated with our institutions and professional associations, and academic social media. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8215242/ /pubmed/34145020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049339 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Lengnick-Hall, Rebecca
Proctor, Enola K
Bunger, Alicia C
Gerke, Donald R
Ten years of implementation outcome research: a scoping review protocol
title Ten years of implementation outcome research: a scoping review protocol
title_full Ten years of implementation outcome research: a scoping review protocol
title_fullStr Ten years of implementation outcome research: a scoping review protocol
title_full_unstemmed Ten years of implementation outcome research: a scoping review protocol
title_short Ten years of implementation outcome research: a scoping review protocol
title_sort ten years of implementation outcome research: a scoping review protocol
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8215242/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34145020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049339
work_keys_str_mv AT lengnickhallrebecca tenyearsofimplementationoutcomeresearchascopingreviewprotocol
AT proctorenolak tenyearsofimplementationoutcomeresearchascopingreviewprotocol
AT bungeraliciac tenyearsofimplementationoutcomeresearchascopingreviewprotocol
AT gerkedonaldr tenyearsofimplementationoutcomeresearchascopingreviewprotocol