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