Literature DB >> 26028447

Context and implementation: A concept analysis towards conceptual maturity.

Lisa Maria Pfadenhauer1, Kati Mozygemba2, Ansgar Gerhardus2, Bjørn Hofmann3, Andrew Booth4, Kristin Bakke Lysdahl3, Marcia Tummers5, Jacob Burns6, Eva Annette Rehfuess6.   

Abstract

Context and implementation of health interventions have received increasing attention over the past decade, in particular with respect to their influence on the effectiveness and reach of complex interventions. The underlying concepts are both considered partially mature, limiting their operationalization in research and practice. We conducted systematic literature searches and pragmatic utility (PU) concept analyses to provide a state-of-the-art assessment of the concepts of "context" and "implementation" in the health sciences to create a common understanding for their use within systematic reviews and HTA. We performed two separate searches, one for context (EMBASE, MEDLINE) and the other for implementation (Google Scholar) to identify relevant models, theories and frameworks. 17 publications on context and 35 articles on implementation met our inclusion criteria. PU concept analysis comprises three guiding principles: selection of the literature, organization and structuring of the literature, and asking analytic questions of the literature. Both concepts were analyzed according to four features of conceptual maturity, i.e., consensual definitions, clear characteristics, fully described preconditions and outcomes, and delineated boundaries. Context and implementation are highly intertwined, with both concepts influencing and interacting with each other. Context is defined as a set of characteristics and circumstances that surround the implementation effort. Implementation is conceptualized as a planned and deliberately initiated effort with the intention to put an intervention into practice. The concept of implementation presents largely consensual definitions and relatively well-defined boundaries, while distinguishing features, preconditions and outcomes are not yet fully articulated. In contrast, definitions of context vary widely, and boundaries with neighbouring concepts, such as setting and environment, are blurred; characteristics, preconditions and outcomes are ill-defined. Therefore, the maturity of both concepts should be further improved to facilitate operationalization in systematic reviews and HTAs.
Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Context; Implementierung; Kontext; Konzeptanalyse; complex interventions; concept analysis; health technology assessment; implementation; komplexe Interventionen; systematic review; systematischer Review: Health Technology Assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26028447     DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2015.01.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes        ISSN: 1865-9217


  41 in total

Review 1.  The health-related quality of life, mental health and mental illnesses of patients with inclusion body myositis (IBM): results of a mixed methods systematic review.

Authors:  Katja C Senn; Laura Gumbert; Simone Thiele; Sabine Krause; Maggie C Walter; Klaus H Nagels
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 4.303

2.  Ethnography and user-centered design to inform context-driven implementation.

Authors:  Emily R Haines; M Alexis Kirk; Lauren Lux; Andrew B Smitherman; Byron J Powell; Alex Dopp; Angela M Stover; Sarah A Birken
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 3.626

3.  Creating pre-conditions for change in clinical practice: the influence of interactions between multiple contexts and human agency.

Authors:  Michelle Myall; Carl May; Alison Richardson; Sarah Bogle; Natasha Campling; Sally Dace; Susi Lund
Journal:  J Health Organ Manag       Date:  2020-10-27

4.  Street-level workers' inadequate knowledge and application of exemption policies in Burkina Faso jeopardize the achievement of universal health coverage: evidence from a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Valéry Ridde; Gerald Leppert; Hervé Hien; Paul Jacob Robyn; Manuela De Allegri
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2018-01-08

5.  The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: what works, for whom and in what setting? Protocol for a realist review.

Authors:  Emma Coles; Mary Wells; Margaret Maxwell; Fiona M Harris; Julie Anderson; Nicola M Gray; Gill Milner; Stephen MacGillivray
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-08-23

6.  Addressing complexity in population health intervention research: the context/intervention interface.

Authors:  Laetitia Minary; François Alla; Linda Cambon; Joelle Kivits; Louise Potvin
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR).

Authors:  Simon Lewin; Maggie Hendry; Jackie Chandler; Andrew D Oxman; Susan Michie; Sasha Shepperd; Barnaby C Reeves; Peter Tugwell; Karin Hannes; Eva A Rehfuess; Vivien Welch; Joanne E Mckenzie; Belinda Burford; Jennifer Petkovic; Laurie M Anderson; Janet Harris; Jane Noyes
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 8.  Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework.

Authors:  Lisa M Pfadenhauer; Ansgar Gerhardus; Kati Mozygemba; Kristin Bakke Lysdahl; Andrew Booth; Bjørn Hofmann; Philip Wahlster; Stephanie Polus; Jacob Burns; Louise Brereton; Eva Rehfuess
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data.

Authors:  Jane Noyes; Andrew Booth; Simon Lewin; Benedicte Carlsen; Claire Glenton; Christopher J Colvin; Ruth Garside; Meghan A Bohren; Arash Rashidian; Megan Wainwright; Özge Tunςalp; Jacqueline Chandler; Signe Flottorp; Tomas Pantoja; Joseph D Tucker; Heather Munthe-Kaas
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) for improving the reporting of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health programmes.

Authors:  Anna E Kågesten; Özge Tunçalp; Anayda Portela; Moazzam Ali; Nhan Tran; A Metin Gülmezoglu
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.