Cargando…
Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches
BACKGROUND: Models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9351159/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35927615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01682-x |
_version_ | 1784762381009682432 |
---|---|
author | Presseau, Justin Kasperavicius, Danielle Rodrigues, Isabel Braganca Braimoh, Jessica Chambers, Andrea Etherington, Cole Giangregorio, Lora Gibbs, Jenna C. Giguere, Anik Graham, Ian D. Hankivsky, Olena Hoens, Alison M. Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna Kelly, Christine Moore, Julia E. Ponzano, Matteo Sharma, Malika Sibley, Kathryn M. Straus, Sharon |
author_facet | Presseau, Justin Kasperavicius, Danielle Rodrigues, Isabel Braganca Braimoh, Jessica Chambers, Andrea Etherington, Cole Giangregorio, Lora Gibbs, Jenna C. Giguere, Anik Graham, Ian D. Hankivsky, Olena Hoens, Alison M. Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna Kelly, Christine Moore, Julia E. Ponzano, Matteo Sharma, Malika Sibley, Kathryn M. Straus, Sharon |
author_sort | Presseau, Justin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems of power and oppression can shape implementation. There is value in enhancing how MTFs in implementation research and practice account for these intersecting factors. Given the large number of MTFs, we sought to identify exemplar MTFs that represent key implementation phases within which to embed an intersectional perspective. METHODS: We used a five-step process to prioritize MTFs for enhancement with an intersectional lens. We mapped 160 MTFs to three previously prioritized phases of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. Next, 17 implementation researchers/practitioners, MTF experts, and intersectionality experts agreed on criteria for prioritizing MTFs within each KTA phase. The experts used a modified Delphi process to agree on an exemplar MTF for each of the three prioritized KTA framework phases. Finally, we reached consensus on the final MTFs and contacted the original MTF developers to confirm MTF versions and explore additional insights. RESULTS: We agreed on three criteria when prioritizing MTFs: acceptability (mean = 3.20, SD = 0.75), applicability (mean = 3.82, SD = 0.72), and usability (median = 4.00, mean = 3.89, SD = 0.31) of the MTF. The top-rated MTFs were the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care for the ‘Identify the problem’ phase (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.31), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for the ‘Assess barriers/facilitators to knowledge use’ phase (mean = 5.79, SD = 1.12), and the Behaviour Change Wheel for the ‘Select, tailor, implement interventions’ phase (mean = 6.36, SD = 1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Our interdisciplinary team engaged in a rigorous process to reach consensus on MTFs reflecting specific phases of the implementation process and prioritized each to serve as an exemplar in which to embed intersectional approaches. The resulting MTFs correspond with specific phases of the KTA framework, which itself may be useful for those seeking particular MTFs for particular KTA phases. This approach also provides a template for how other implementation MTFs could be similarly considered in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registration: osf.io/qgh64. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01682-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9351159 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93511592022-08-05 Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches Presseau, Justin Kasperavicius, Danielle Rodrigues, Isabel Braganca Braimoh, Jessica Chambers, Andrea Etherington, Cole Giangregorio, Lora Gibbs, Jenna C. Giguere, Anik Graham, Ian D. Hankivsky, Olena Hoens, Alison M. Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna Kelly, Christine Moore, Julia E. Ponzano, Matteo Sharma, Malika Sibley, Kathryn M. Straus, Sharon BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems of power and oppression can shape implementation. There is value in enhancing how MTFs in implementation research and practice account for these intersecting factors. Given the large number of MTFs, we sought to identify exemplar MTFs that represent key implementation phases within which to embed an intersectional perspective. METHODS: We used a five-step process to prioritize MTFs for enhancement with an intersectional lens. We mapped 160 MTFs to three previously prioritized phases of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. Next, 17 implementation researchers/practitioners, MTF experts, and intersectionality experts agreed on criteria for prioritizing MTFs within each KTA phase. The experts used a modified Delphi process to agree on an exemplar MTF for each of the three prioritized KTA framework phases. Finally, we reached consensus on the final MTFs and contacted the original MTF developers to confirm MTF versions and explore additional insights. RESULTS: We agreed on three criteria when prioritizing MTFs: acceptability (mean = 3.20, SD = 0.75), applicability (mean = 3.82, SD = 0.72), and usability (median = 4.00, mean = 3.89, SD = 0.31) of the MTF. The top-rated MTFs were the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care for the ‘Identify the problem’ phase (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.31), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for the ‘Assess barriers/facilitators to knowledge use’ phase (mean = 5.79, SD = 1.12), and the Behaviour Change Wheel for the ‘Select, tailor, implement interventions’ phase (mean = 6.36, SD = 1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Our interdisciplinary team engaged in a rigorous process to reach consensus on MTFs reflecting specific phases of the implementation process and prioritized each to serve as an exemplar in which to embed intersectional approaches. The resulting MTFs correspond with specific phases of the KTA framework, which itself may be useful for those seeking particular MTFs for particular KTA phases. This approach also provides a template for how other implementation MTFs could be similarly considered in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registration: osf.io/qgh64. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01682-x. BioMed Central 2022-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9351159/ /pubmed/35927615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01682-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Presseau, Justin Kasperavicius, Danielle Rodrigues, Isabel Braganca Braimoh, Jessica Chambers, Andrea Etherington, Cole Giangregorio, Lora Gibbs, Jenna C. Giguere, Anik Graham, Ian D. Hankivsky, Olena Hoens, Alison M. Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna Kelly, Christine Moore, Julia E. Ponzano, Matteo Sharma, Malika Sibley, Kathryn M. Straus, Sharon Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches |
title | Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches |
title_full | Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches |
title_fullStr | Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches |
title_full_unstemmed | Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches |
title_short | Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches |
title_sort | selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9351159/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35927615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01682-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT presseaujustin selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT kasperaviciusdanielle selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT rodriguesisabelbraganca selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT braimohjessica selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT chambersandrea selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT etheringtoncole selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT giangregoriolora selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT gibbsjennac selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT giguereanik selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT grahamiand selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT hankivskyolena selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT hoensalisonm selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT holroydleducjayna selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT kellychristine selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT moorejuliae selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT ponzanomatteo selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT sharmamalika selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT sibleykathrynm selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches AT straussharon selectingimplementationmodelstheoriesandframeworksinwhichtointegrateintersectionalapproaches |