Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33902748›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2021

Harmonizing evidence-based practice, implementation context, and implementation strategies with user-centered design: a case example in young adult cancer care.

Emily R Haines, Alex Dopp, Aaron R Lyon, Holly O Witteman, Miriam Bender, Gratianne Vaisson, Danielle Hitch, Sarah Birken

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
19.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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. Article
  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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Emily R HainesDepartment of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, 525 Vine Street, Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA. ehaines@wakehealth.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7208-5937
Alex DoppDepartment of Behavioral and Policy Sciences, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA.
Aaron R LyonPsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 6200 NE 74th Street, Suite 100, Seattle, WA, 98115, USA.
Holly O WittemanDepartment of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Ferdinand Vandry Pavillon, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine,, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Miriam BenderSue & Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, 252C Berk Hall, Irvine, CA, 92697-3959, USA.
Gratianne VaissonOccupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Ferdinand Vandry Pavillon, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Danielle HitchDepartment of Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Sarah BirkenDepartment of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, 525@Vine Room 5219, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA.
Université Laval · CAWake Forest University · USDeakin University · AURAND Corporation · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS) KL2KL2TR002490 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WEINBERGER, MORRIS · 2018 to 2022
$11.0M
Postdoctoral Training Program in Cancer SurvivorshipR25CA122061 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI AVIS, NANCY E · 2008 to 2018
$3.8M
Cancer Prevention And Control Training Grant (CAPACITY)T32CA122061 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI KRISTIE L FOLEY, Kathryn Elizabeth Weaver · 2019 to 2026
$2.1M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002490NCATS NIH HHS KL2TR002490NCI NIH HHS 2T32 CA122061NCI NIH HHS R25 CA122061NCI NIH HHS T32 CA122061NIMH NIH HHS 5R25MH08091607
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAttempting to implement evidence-based practices in contexts for which they are not well suited may compromise their fidelity and effectiveness or burden users (e.g., patients, providers, healthcare organizations) with elaborate strategies intended to force implementation. To improve the fit between evidence-based practices and contexts, implementation science experts have called for methods for adapting evidence-based practices and contexts and tailoring implementation strategies; yet, methods for considering the dynamic interplay among evidence-based practices, contexts, and implementation strategies remain lacking. We argue that harmonizing the three can be facilitated by user-centered design, an iterative and highly stakeholder-engaged set of principles and methods.

methodsThis paper presents a case example in which we used a three-phase user-centered design process to design and plan to implement a care coordination intervention for young adults with cancer. Specifically, we used usability testing to redesign and augment an existing patient-reported outcome measure that served as the basis for our intervention to optimize its usability and usefulness, ethnographic contextual inquiry to prepare the context (i.e., a comprehensive cancer center) to promote receptivity to implementation, and iterative prototyping workshops with a multidisciplinary design team to design the care coordination intervention and anticipate implementation strategies needed to enhance contextual fit.

resultsOur user-centered design process resulted in the Young Adult Needs Assessment and Service Bridge (NA-SB), including a patient-reported outcome measure and a collection of referral pathways that are triggered by the needs young adults report, as well as implementation guidance. By ensuring NA-SB directly responded to features of users and context, we designed NA-SB for implementation, potentially minimizing the strategies needed to address misalignment that may have otherwise existed. Furthermore, we designed NA-SB for scale-up; by engaging users from other cancer programs across the country to identify points of contextual variation which would require flexibility in delivery, we created a tool intended to accommodate diverse contexts.

conclusionsUser-centered design can help maximize usability and usefulness when designing evidence-based practices, preparing contexts, and informing implementation strategies-in effect, harmonizing evidence-based practices, contexts, and implementation strategies to promote implementation and effectiveness.

Indexed as

AdaptationContextContextual appropriatenessDesigning implementation strategiesEBP redesignEvidence-based practice implementationHuman-centered designStakeholder engagementUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID33902748
PMCPMC8077816
OpenAlexW3158130182

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.