Janet E Squires1,2, Ian Graham2,3, Kainat Bashir4, Letitia Nadalin-Penno1, John Lavis5,6, Jill Francis7, Janet Curran8,9, Jeremy M Grimshaw2,10, Jamie Brehaut2,3, Noah Ivers11,12,13, Susan Michie14, Michael Hillmer15, Thomas Noseworthy16, Jocelyn Vine9,17, Melissa Demery Varin1, Laura D Aloisio2, Mary Coughlin2, Alison M Hutchinson18. 1. School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 3. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4. Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. McMaster Health Forum, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 7. School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom. 8. IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 9. School of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 10. Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 11. Women's College Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 12. Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 13. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 14. Psychology Department, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 15. Information Management, Data, and Analytics, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 16. British Columbia Academic Health Science Network, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 17. Patient Care, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 18. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: To conduct a concept analysis of clinical practice contexts (work environments) in health care. BACKGROUND: Context is increasingly recognized as important to the development, delivery, and understanding of implementation strategies; however, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is lacking. DESIGN: Modified Walker and Avant concept analysis comprised of five steps: (1) concept selection; (2) determination of aims; (3) identification of uses of context; (4) determination of its defining attributes; and (5) definition of its empirical referents. METHODS: A wide range of databases were systematically searched from inception to August 2014. Empirical articles were included if a definition and/or attributes of context were reported. Theoretical articles were included if they reported a model, theory, or framework of context or where context was a component. Double independent screening and data extraction were conducted. Analysis was iterative, involving organizing and reorganizing until a framework of domains, attributes. and features of context emerged. RESULT: We identified 15,972 references, of which 70 satisfied our inclusion criteria. In total, 201 unique features of context were identified, of these 89 were shared (reported in two or more studies). The 89 shared features were grouped into 21 attributes of context which were further categorized into six domains of context. CONCLUSION: This study resulted in a framework of domains, attributes and features of context. These attributes and features, if assessed and used to tailor implementation activities, hold promise for improved research implementation in clinical practice.
AIMS: To conduct a concept analysis of clinical practice contexts (work environments) in health care. BACKGROUND: Context is increasingly recognized as important to the development, delivery, and understanding of implementation strategies; however, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is lacking. DESIGN: Modified Walker and Avant concept analysis comprised of five steps: (1) concept selection; (2) determination of aims; (3) identification of uses of context; (4) determination of its defining attributes; and (5) definition of its empirical referents. METHODS: A wide range of databases were systematically searched from inception to August 2014. Empirical articles were included if a definition and/or attributes of context were reported. Theoretical articles were included if they reported a model, theory, or framework of context or where context was a component. Double independent screening and data extraction were conducted. Analysis was iterative, involving organizing and reorganizing until a framework of domains, attributes. and features of context emerged. RESULT: We identified 15,972 references, of which 70 satisfied our inclusion criteria. In total, 201 unique features of context were identified, of these 89 were shared (reported in two or more studies). The 89 shared features were grouped into 21 attributes of context which were further categorized into six domains of context. CONCLUSION: This study resulted in a framework of domains, attributes and features of context. These attributes and features, if assessed and used to tailor implementation activities, hold promise for improved research implementation in clinical practice.
Authors: Nicole Etherington; Isabel Braganca Rodrigues; Lora Giangregorio; Ian D Graham; Alison M Hoens; Danielle Kasperavicius; Christine Kelly; Julia E Moore; Matteo Ponzano; Justin Presseau; Kathryn M Sibley; Sharon Straus Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Houria El Ouazzani; Simon Fortin; Nicolas Venisse; Antoine Dupuis; Steeve Rouillon; Guillaume Cambien; Anne-Sophie Gourgues; Pascale Pierre-Eugène; Sylvie Rabouan; Virginie Migeot; Marion Albouy-Llaty Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 3.390