See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Sharon E. Straus
University of Toronto
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6106-832X
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to develop a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool.
Methods We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Results A total of 24 participants identified characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework as major categories of barriers/facilitators to inform tool development. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied.
Conclusions An easy to use decision support tool that addresses key barriers to selecting an implementation theory, model or framework in practice may be beneficial to individuals who facilitate implementation practice activities. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool design and development through a user-centered approach.
Keywords
implementation, theory, model, framework, interviews, decision support tool
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 30 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 24 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 13 Feb, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Jan, 2020
Version 1
Posted 14 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 16 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 11 Dec, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 29 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 19 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 15 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 07 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 06 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 06 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 06 Nov, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Medical Informatics
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Sharon E. Straus
University of Toronto
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6106-832X
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 30 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 24 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 13 Feb, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Jan, 2020
Version 1
Posted 14 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 16 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 11 Dec, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 29 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 19 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 15 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 07 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 06 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 06 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 06 Nov, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Medical Informatics
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
Background Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to develop a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool.
Methods We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Results A total of 24 participants identified characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework as major categories of barriers/facilitators to inform tool development. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied.
Conclusions An easy to use decision support tool that addresses key barriers to selecting an implementation theory, model or framework in practice may be beneficial to individuals who facilitate implementation practice activities. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool design and development through a user-centered approach.
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...