Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36925847›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2022

Understanding dynamic complexity in context-Enriching contextual analysis in implementation science from a constructivist perspective.

Juliane Mielke, Sabina De Geest, Franziska Zúñiga, Thekla Brunkert, Leah L Zullig, Lisa M Pfadenhauer, Sandra Staudacher

Full text read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

7 authors.

Juliane MielkeInstitute of Nursing Science, Department Public Health, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Sabina De GeestInstitute of Nursing Science, Department Public Health, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Franziska ZúñigaInstitute of Nursing Science, Department Public Health, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Thekla BrunkertInstitute of Nursing Science, Department Public Health, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Leah L ZulligCenter for Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care, Durham, NC, United States.
Lisa M PfadenhauerInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sandra StaudacherInstitute of Nursing Science, Department Public Health, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context in implementation science includes not only characteristics of a setting in which an intervention will be delivered, but also social systems (e.g., interrelationships). Context is dynamic and interacts with both, the intervention and its implementation. Therefore, contextual analysis is recognized as an indispensable part of implementation science methodology: it provides the foundation for successful and sustainable implementation projects. Yet, driven by the prevailing post-positivist understanding of context, contextual analysis typically focuses on individual characteristics of context i.e., contextual dynamics and interactions go unnoticed. Conducting contextual analysis from a constructivist perspective promotes a multilayered approach, building a more comprehensive understanding of context, and thus facilitating successful implementation. In this article, we highlight the limitations of prevailing perspectives on context and approaches to contextual analysis. We then describe how contextual analysis can be enriched by working from a constructivist perspective. We finish with a discussion of the methodological and practical implications the proposed changes would entail. Emerging literature attempts to address both the concept of context and methods for contextual analysis. Various theories, models and frameworks consider context, however, many of these are reductionistic and do not acknowledge the dynamic nature of context or interactions within it. To complement recent conceptualizations of context, we suggest consider the following five constructivist concepts: 1) social space; 2) social place; 3) agency; 4) sensation; and 5) embodiment. We demonstrate the value of these concepts using COVID-19 vaccination uptake as an example and integrate the concepts in the

Indexed as

complexityconstructivismcontextcontextual analysisdisseminationimplementation sciencepost-positivismsocial science

Identifiers

PMID36925847
PMCPMC10012673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read2
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.