Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26416206›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2015

Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol.

Janet E Squires, Ian D Graham, Alison M Hutchinson, Susan Michie, Jill J Francis, Anne Sales, Jamie Brehaut, Janet Curran, Noah Ivers, John Lavis and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Janet E SquiresSchool of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. jasquires@ohri.ca.
Ian D GrahamClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. igraham@ohri.ca.
Alison M HutchinsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. alison.hutchinson@deakin.edu.au.
Susan MichiePsychology Department, University College London, London, UK. s.michie@ucl.ac.uk.
Jill J FrancisSchool of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK. Jill.Francis.1@city.ac.uk.
Anne SalesVA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor and School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. salesann@med.umich.edu.
Jamie BrehautClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. jbrehaut@ohri.ca.
Janet CurranSchool of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. jacurran@dal.ca.
Noah IversDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. noah.ivers@utoronto.ca.
John LavisDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. lavisj@mcmaster.ca.
Stefanie LinklaterClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. slinklater@ohri.ca.
Shannon FentonPlanning, Research and Analysis Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health & Long Term Care, Toronto, Canada. shannon.fenton@ontario.ca.
Thomas NoseworthyCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. tnosewor@ucalgary.ca.
Jocelyn VineIWK Health Centre, Halifax, Canada. jocelyn.vine@iwk.nshealth.ca.
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. jgrimshaw@ohri.ca.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing recognition that "context" can and does modify the effects of implementation interventions aimed at increasing healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what exactly comprises "context" is lacking. The purpose of this research program is to develop, refine, and validate a framework that identifies the key domains of context (and their features) that can facilitate or hinder (1) healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions. METHODS/

designA multi-phased investigation of context using mixed methods will be conducted. The first phase is a concept analysis of context using the Walker and Avant method to distinguish between the defining and irrelevant attributes of context. This phase will result in a preliminary framework for context that identifies its important domains and their features according to the published literature. The second phase is a secondary analysis of qualitative data from 13 studies of interviews with 312 healthcare professionals on the perceived barriers and enablers to their application of research evidence in clinical practice. These data will be analyzed inductively using constant comparative analysis. For the third phase, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with key health system stakeholders and change agents to elicit their knowledge and beliefs about the contextual features that influence the effectiveness of implementation interventions and healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice. Results from all three phases will be synthesized using a triangulation protocol to refine the context framework drawn from the concept analysis. The framework will then be assessed for content validity using an iterative Delphi approach with international experts (researchers and health system stakeholders/change agents). DISCUSSION: This research program will result in a framework that identifies the domains of context and their features that can facilitate or hinder: (1) healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice and (2) the effectiveness of implementation interventions. The framework will increase the conceptual clarity of the term "context" for advancing implementation science, improving healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice, and providing greater understanding of what interventions are likely to be effective in which contexts.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDiffusion of InnovationResearch DesignEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID26416206
PMCPMC4584460

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.