Literature DB >> 21752264

Measuring organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care.

Marie-Pierre Gagnon1, Jenni Labarthe, France Légaré, Mathieu Ouimet, Carole A Estabrooks, Geneviève Roch, El Kebir Ghandour, Jeremy Grimshaw.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation (KT) is an imperative in order to implement research-based and contextualized practices that can answer the numerous challenges of complex health problems. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides a conceptual framework to guide the implementation process in chronic care. Yet, organizations aiming to improve chronic care require an adequate level of organizational readiness (OR) for KT. Available instruments on organizational readiness for change (ORC) have shown limited validity, and are not tailored or adapted to specific phases of the knowledge-to-action (KTA) process. We aim to develop an evidence-based, comprehensive, and valid instrument to measure OR for KT in healthcare. The OR for KT instrument will be based on core concepts retrieved from existing literature and validated by a Delphi study. We will specifically test the instrument in chronic care that is of an increasing importance for the health system.
METHODS: Phase one: We will conduct a systematic review of the theories and instruments assessing ORC in healthcare. The retained theoretical information will be synthesized in a conceptual map. A bibliography and database of ORC instruments will be prepared after appraisal of their psychometric properties according to the standards for educational and psychological testing. An online Delphi study will be carried out among decision makers and knowledge users across Canada to assess the importance of these concepts and measures at different steps in the KTA process in chronic care.Phase two: A final OR for KT instrument will be developed and validated both in French and in English and tested in chronic disease management to measure OR for KT regarding the adoption of comprehensive, patient-centered, and system-based CCMs. DISCUSSION: This study provides a comprehensive synthesis of current knowledge on explanatory models and instruments assessing OR for KT. Moreover, this project aims to create more consensus on the theoretical underpinnings and the instrumentation of OR for KT in chronic care. The final product--a comprehensive and valid OR for KT instrument--will provide the chronic care settings with an instrument to assess their readiness to implement evidence-based chronic care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21752264      PMCID: PMC3158542          DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-72

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Implement Sci        ISSN: 1748-5908            Impact factor:   7.327


  43 in total

Review 1.  Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement.

Authors:  M D Cabana; C S Rand; N R Powe; A W Wu; M H Wilson; P A Abboud; H R Rubin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  The concept of diabetes translation: addressing barriers to widespread adoption of new science into clinical care.

Authors:  R G Hiss
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 19.112

3.  Evaluating the context within which continence care is provided in rehabilitation units for older people.

Authors:  Jayne Wright; Brendan McCormack; Alice Coffey; Geraldine McCarthy
Journal:  Int J Older People Nurs       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.115

4.  Translating research into practice: implications for organizations and administrators.

Authors:  Carole A Estabrooks
Journal:  Can J Nurs Res       Date:  2003-09

Review 5.  Assessing the relationships between contextual factors and research utilization in nursing: systematic literature review.

Authors:  Judith M M Meijers; Maaike A P Janssen; Greta G Cummings; Lars Wallin; Carole A Estabrooks; Ruud Y G Halfens
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.187

6.  A context of uncertainty: how context shapes nurses' research utilization behaviors.

Authors:  Shannon D Scott; Carole A Estabrooks; Marion Allen; Carolee Pollock
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2008-03

Review 7.  A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews.

Authors:  Pierre Pluye; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Frances Griffiths; Janique Johnson-Lafleur
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 5.837

8.  Evidence on the Chronic Care Model in the new millennium.

Authors:  Katie Coleman; Brian T Austin; Cindy Brach; Edward H Wagner
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.301

9.  The expanded Chronic Care Model: an integration of concepts and strategies from population health promotion and the Chronic Care Model.

Authors:  Victoria J Barr; Sylvia Robinson; Brenda Marin-Link; Lisa Underhill; Anita Dotts; Darlene Ravensdale; Sandy Salivaras
Journal:  Hosp Q       Date:  2003

Review 10.  Diabetes translation research: where are we and where do we want to be?

Authors:  K M Venkat Narayan; Evan Benjamin; Edward W Gregg; Susan L Norris; Michael M Engelgau
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  27 in total

1.  Predictors of the decision to adopt motivational interviewing in community health settings.

Authors:  Jessica Roberts Williams; Marissa Puckett Blais; Duren Banks; Tracy Dusablon; Weston O Williams; Kevin D Hennessy
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.505

2.  Evaluation of a randomized intervention to increase adoption of comparative effectiveness research by community health organizations.

Authors:  Jessica Roberts Williams; Weston O Williams; Tracy Dusablon; Marissa Puckett Blais; Stephen J Tregear; Duren Banks; Kevin D Hennessy
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.505

3.  Characteristics of community health organizations and decision-makers considering the adoption of motivational interviewing.

Authors:  Jessica Roberts Williams; Tracy Dusablon; Weston O Williams; Marissa Puckett Blais; Kevin D Hennessy
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.505

4.  Adapting collaborative depression care for public community long-term care: using research-practice partnerships.

Authors:  Leslie K Hasche; Shannon Lenze; Teresa Brown; Lisa Lawrence; Mike Nickel; Nancy Morrow-Howell; Enola K Proctor
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2014-09

5.  Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks.

Authors:  Per Nilsen
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 6.  How to study improvement interventions: a brief overview of possible study types.

Authors:  Margareth Crisóstomo Portela; Peter J Pronovost; Thomas Woodcock; Pam Carter; Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 7.035

Review 7.  How to study improvement interventions: a brief overview of possible study types.

Authors:  Margareth Crisóstomo Portela; Peter J Pronovost; Thomas Woodcock; Pam Carter; Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.401

8.  Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients.

Authors:  Enola K Proctor; Byron J Powell; Ana A Baumann; Ashley M Hamilton; Ryan L Santens
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  What supports physiotherapists' use of research in clinical practice? A qualitative study in Sweden.

Authors:  Petra Dannapfel; Anneli Peolsson; Per Nilsen
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  Models of care for musculoskeletal health: a cross-sectional qualitative study of Australian stakeholders' perspectives on relevance and standardised evaluation.

Authors:  Andrew M Briggs; Joanne E Jordan; Robyn Speerin; Matthew Jennings; Peter Bragge; Jason Chua; Helen Slater
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.