Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25479618›Full record

Observational studyImplementation science : IS2014

Stakeholders' contributions to tailored implementation programs: an observational study of group interview methods.

Elke Huntink, Jan van Lieshout, Eivind Aakhus, Richard Baker, Signe Flottorp, Maciek Godycki-Cwirko, Cornelia Jäger, Anna Kowalczyk, Joachim Szecsenyi, Michel Wensing

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Elke HuntinkRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Elke.Huntink@radboudumc.nl.
Jan van LieshoutRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Jan.vanLieshout@radboudumc.nl.
Eivind AakhusResearch Centre for Old Age Psychiatry, Innlandet Hospital Trust, 2312, Ottestad, Norway. eivind.aakhus@gmail.com.
Richard BakerUniversity of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK. rb14@leicester.ac.uk.
Signe FlottorpNorwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130, Oslo, Norway. signe.flottorp@kunnskapssenteret.no.
Maciek Godycki-CwirkoMedical University of Lodz, ul. Kopcinskiego 20, 90-153, Lodz, Poland. maciej.dodycki-cwirko@umed.lodz.pl.
Cornelia JägerHeidelberg University Hospital, Voßstraße 2, D-69115, Heidelberg, Germany. Cornelia.jaeger@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Anna KowalczykCentre for Family and Community Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, ul. Kopcinskiego 20, 90-153, Lodz, Poland. anna.kowalczyk@umed.lodz.pl.
Joachim SzecsenyiHeidelberg University Hospital, Voßstraße 2, D-69115, Heidelberg, Germany. Joachim.szecsenyi@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Michel WensingRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Michel.Wensing@Radboudumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTailored strategies to implement evidence-based practice can be generated in several ways. In this study, we explored the usefulness of group interviews for generating these strategies, focused on improving healthcare for patients with chronic diseases.

methodsParticipants included at least four categories of stakeholders (researchers, quality officers, health professionals, and external stakeholders) in five countries. Interviews comprised brainstorming followed by a structured interview and focused on different chronic conditions in each country. We compared the numbers and types of strategies between stakeholder categories and between interview phases. We also determined which strategies were actually used in tailored intervention programs.

resultsIn total, 127 individuals participated in 25 group interviews across five countries. Brainstorming generated 8 to 120 strategies per group; structured interviews added 0 to 55 strategies. Healthcare professionals and researchers provided the largest numbers of strategies. The type of strategies for improving healthcare practice did not differ systematically between stakeholder groups in four of the five countries. In three out of five countries, all components of the chosen intervention programs were mentioned by the group of researchers.

conclusionsGroup interviews with different stakeholder categories produced many strategies for tailored implementation of evidence-based practice, of which the content was largely similar across stakeholder categories.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeQuality ImprovementAttitude of Health PersonnelChronic DiseaseDiffusion of InnovationHealth Plan ImplementationHealth PolicyHumansInterviews as TopicProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25479618
PMCPMC4268850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.