Research papers
2009 · Implementation Science · 15,202 citations
BACKGROUND: Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. METHODS: We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. RESULTS: The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. CONCLUSION: The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
1999 · American Journal of Public Health · 7,438 citations
Progress in public health and community-based interventions has been hampered by the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework appropriate to such programs. Multilevel interventions that incorporate policy, environmental, and individual components should be evaluated with measurements suited to their settings, goals, and purpose. In this commentary, the authors propose a model (termed the RE-AIM model) for evaluating public health interventions that assesses 5 dimensions: reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. These dimensions occur at multiple levels (e.g., individual, clinic or organization, community) and interact to determine the public health or population-based impact of a program or policy. The authors discuss issues in evaluating each of these dimensions and combining them to determine overall public health impact. Failure to adequately evaluate programs on all 5 dimensions can lead to a waste of resources, discontinuities between stages of research, and failure to improve public health to the limits of our capacity. The authors summarize strengths and limitations of the RE-AIM model and recommend areas for future research and application.
1987 · Research in Nursing & Health · 1,303 citations
Integrative reviews of research are a valuable part of the process of creating and organizing a body of literature. It has been argued that integrative reviews should be held to the same standards of clarity, rigor, and replication as primary research. In this paper methods for conducting an integrative review are discussed. Seventeen reviews from nursing journals were examined and compared with a proposed set of criteria for reviews. The results indicated that the majority of integrative reviews in nursing fell short of primary research standards. Guidelines for conducting more rigorous reviews are presented.
2019 · Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 51 citations
BACKGROUND: Nursing education and training are essential in the attainment of evidence-based practice (EBP) competence in nursing students. Although there is a growing literature on EBP among nursing students, most of these studies are confined to a single cultural group. Thus, cross-cultural studies may provide shared global perspectives and theoretical understandings for the advancement of knowledge in this critical area. AIMS: This study compared self-perceived EBP competence among nursing students in four selected countries (India, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Oman) as well as perceived barriers to EBP adoption. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional, and comparative survey of 1,383 nursing students from India, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Oman participated in the study. The Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBP-COQ) and the BARRIERS scale were used to collect data during the months of January 2016 to August 2017. RESULTS: Cross-country comparisons revealed significant differences in EBP competence (F = 24.437, p < .001), knowledge (F = 3.621, p = .013), skills (F = 9.527, p < .001), and attitudes (F = 74.412, p < .001) among nursing students. Three variables including nursing students' gender (β = .301, p < .001), type of institution, (β = -0.339, p = .001), and type of nursing student (β = .321, p < .001) were associated with EBP competence. Barriers to EBP adoption included having no authority to change patient care policies (M = 1.65, SD = 1.05), slow publication of evidence (M = 1.59, SD = 1.01), and paucity of time in the clinical area to implement the evidence (M = 1.59, SD = 1.05). LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Both academe and hospital administration can play a pivotal role in the successful acquisition of EBP competence in nursing students.