Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33292862›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2020

Introducing an interactional approach to exploring facilitation as an implementation intervention: examining the utility of Conversation Analysis.

Sarah C Hunter, Jessica A Young, Michael T Lawless, Alison L Kitson, Rebecca Feo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Sarah C HunterCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia. sarah.hunter@flinders.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3407-0774
Jessica A YoungCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.
Michael T LawlessCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.
Alison L KitsonCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.
Rebecca FeoCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe widely adopted integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework identifies facilitation as a 'core ingredient' for successful implementation. Indeed, most implementation scientists agree that a certain degree of facilitation is required to translate research into clinical practice; that is, there must be some intentional effort to assist the implementation of evidence-based approaches and practices into healthcare. Yet understandings of what constitutes facilitation and how to facilitate effectively remain largely theoretical and, therefore, provide scant practical guidance to ensure facilitator success. Implementation Science theories and frameworks often describe facilitation as an activity accomplished in, and through, formal and informal communication amongst facilitators and those involved in the implementation process (i.e. 'recipients'). However, the specific communication practices that constitute and enable effective facilitation are currently inadequately understood.

aimIn this debate article, we argue that without effective facilitation-a practice requiring significant interactional and interpersonal skills-many implementation projects encounter difficulties. Therefore, we explore whether and how the application of Conversation Analysis, a rigorous research methodology for researching patterns of interaction, could expand existing understandings of facilitation within the Implementation Science field. First, we illustrate how Conversation Analysis methods can be applied to identifying what facilitation looks like in interaction. Second, we draw from existing conversation analytic research into facilitation outside of Implementation Science to expand current understandings of how facilitation might be achieved within implementation.

conclusionIn this paper, we argue that conversation analytic methods show potential to understand and refine facilitation as a critical, and inherently interactional, component of implementation efforts. Conversation analytic investigations of facilitation as it occurs in real-time between participants could inform mechanisms to (1) improve understandings of how to achieve successful implementation through facilitation, (2) overcome difficulties and challenges in implementation related to interpersonal communication and interaction, (3) inform future facilitator training and (4) inform refinement of existing facilitation theories and frameworks (e.g. i-PARIHS) currently used in implementation interventions.

Indexed as

Conversation AnalysisEvidence-based practiceFacilitationImplementationInteractioni-PARIHSKnowledge Translation

Identifiers

PMID33292862
PMCPMC7640407

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.