Literature DB >> 33926430

Characteristics of knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks for health technology reassessment: expert perspectives through a qualitative exploration.

Rosmin Esmail1,2,3,4, Fiona M Clement1,3, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc1,2,3,4,5, Daniel J Niven1,2,3,6, Heather M Hanson7,8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is a process that systematically assesses technologies that are currently used in the health care system. The process results in four outputs: increase use or decrease use, no change, or de-adoption of a technology. Implementation of these outputs remains a challenge. The Knowledge Translation (KT) field enables to transfer/translate knowledge into practice. KT could help with implementation of HTR outputs. This study sought to identify which characteristics of KT theories, models, and frameworks could be useful, specifically for decreased use or de-adoption of a technology.
METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was used to ascertain the perspectives of international KT and HTR experts on the characteristics of KT theories, models, and frameworks for decreased use or de-adoption of a technology. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted from September to December 2019. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes and sub-themes were deduced from the data through framework analysis using five distinctive steps: familiarization, identifying an analytic framework, indexing, charting, mapping and interpretation. Themes and sub-themes were also mapped to existing KT theories, models, and frameworks.
RESULTS: Thirteen experts from Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Spain, and Sweden participated in the study. Three themes emerged that illustrated the ideal traits: principles that were foundational for HTR, levers of change, and steps for knowledge to action. Principles included evidence-based, high usability, patient-centered, and ability to apply to the micro, meso, macro levels. Levers of change were characterized as positive, neutral, or negative influences for changing behaviour for HTR. Steps for knowledge to action included: build the case for HTR, adapt research knowledge, assess context, select interventions, and assess impact. Of the KT theories, models, and frameworks that were mapped, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research had most of the characteristics, except ability to apply to micro, meso, macro levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics that need to be considered within a KT theory, model, and framework for implementing HTR outputs have been identified. Consideration of these characteristics may guide users to select relevant KT theories, models, and frameworks to apply to HTR projects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  De-adoption; De-implementation; Disinvestment; Health technology reassessment; Implementation science; Knowledge translation; Models and frameworks; Theories

Year:  2021        PMID: 33926430     DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06382-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res        ISSN: 1472-6963            Impact factor:   2.655


  35 in total

1.  Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done?

Authors:  Sarah Garner; Peter Littlejohns
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-07-27

Review 2.  Health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: current practices.

Authors:  Laura Leggett; Tom W Noseworthy; Mahmood Zarrabi; Diane Lorenzetti; Lloyd R Sutherland; Fiona M Clement
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.188

3.  Health technology reassessment: scope, methodology, & language.

Authors:  Tom Noseworthy; Fiona Clement
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.188

4.  Using health technology assessment to support optimal use of technologies in current practice: the challenge of "disinvestment".

Authors:  Chris Henshall; Tara Schuller; Logan Mardhani-Bayne
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2012-07-16       Impact factor: 2.188

5.  DRUG DISINVESTMENT FRAMEWORKS: COMPONENTS, CHALLENGES, AND SOLUTIONS.

Authors:  Mary Alison Maloney; Lisa Schwartz; Daria O'Reilly; Mitchel Levine
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 6.  Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use.

Authors:  Lisa Strifler; Roberta Cardoso; Jessie McGowan; Elise Cogo; Vera Nincic; Paul A Khan; Alistair Scott; Marco Ghassemi; Heather MacDonald; Yonda Lai; Victoria Treister; Andrea C Tricco; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 7.  Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research.

Authors:  Rachel G Tabak; Elaine C Khoong; David A Chambers; Ross C Brownson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 8.  A scoping review of classification schemes of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into practice in healthcare.

Authors:  Cynthia Lokker; K Ann McKibbon; Heather Colquhoun; Susanne Hempel
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  Knowledge translation in health: how implementation science could contribute more.

Authors:  Michel Wensing; Richard Grol
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 8.775

10.  Knowledge translation and health technology reassessment: identifying synergy.

Authors:  Rosmin Esmail; Heather Hanson; Jayna Holroyd-Leduc; Daniel J Niven; Fiona Clement
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.