Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37194084›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2023

How does facilitation in healthcare work? Using mechanism mapping to illuminate the black box of a meta-implementation strategy.

Amy M Kilbourne, Elvin Geng, Ingrid Eshun-Wilson, Shannon Sweeney, Donna Shelley, Deborah J Cohen, JoAnn E Kirchner, Maria E Fernandez, Michael L Parchman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
33.2field-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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Amy M KilbourneHealth Services Research & Development, VA Office of Research and Development, US Department of Veterans Affairs and University of Michigan, 810 Vermont Ave, NW, Washington, D.C., 20420, USA. Amy.Kilbourne@va.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5815-6401
Elvin GengWashington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Ingrid Eshun-WilsonWashington University at St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Shannon SweeneyOregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Donna ShelleyNew York University School of Global Public Health, New York, New York, USA.
Deborah J CohenOregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
JoAnn E KirchnerCentral Arkansas VA Healthcare System and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, North Little Rock, AR, USA.
Maria E FernandezUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA.
Michael L ParchmanKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Oregon Health & Science University · USWashington University in St. Louis · USCentral Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USNew York University · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs · US

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (KL2) KL2TR002346 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Dominic N Reeds · 2017 to 2026
$14.0M
Improving Student Mental Health: Adaptive Implementation of School-based CBTR01MH114203 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI KILBOURNE, AMY M · 2017 to 2021
$3.6M
Achieving Cardiovascular Health Equity in Community Mental Health: Optimizing Implementation StrategiesUG3HL154280 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DAUMIT, GAIL L., KILBOURNE, AMY M · 2020 to 2022
$3.4M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002346NHLBI NIH HHS UG3 HL154280NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH114203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare facilitation, an implementation strategy designed to improve the uptake of effective clinical innovations in routine practice, has produced promising yet mixed results in randomized implementation trials and has not been fully researched across different contexts.

objectiveUsing mechanism mapping, which applies directed acyclic graphs that decompose an effect of interest into hypothesized causal steps and mechanisms, we propose a more concrete description of how healthcare facilitation works to inform its further study as a meta-implementation strategy.

methodsUsing a modified Delphi consensus process, co-authors developed the mechanistic map based on a three-step process. First, they developed an initial logic model by collectively reviewing the literature and identifying the most relevant studies of healthcare facilitation components and mechanisms to date. Second, they applied the logic model to write vignettes describing how facilitation worked (or did not) based on recent empirical trials that were selected via consensus for inclusion and diversity in contextual settings (US, international sites). Finally, the mechanistic map was created based on the collective findings from the vignettes.

findingsTheory-based healthcare facilitation components informing the mechanistic map included staff engagement, role clarification, coalition-building through peer experiences and identifying champions, capacity-building through problem solving barriers, and organizational ownership of the implementation process. Across the vignettes, engagement of leaders and practitioners led to increased socialization of the facilitator's role in the organization. This in turn led to clarifying of roles and responsibilities among practitioners and identifying peer experiences led to increased coherence and sense-making of the value of adopting effective innovations. Increased trust develops across leadership and practitioners through expanded capacity in adoption of the effective innovation by identifying opportunities that mitigated barriers to practice change. Finally, these mechanisms led to eventual normalization and ownership of the effective innovation and healthcare facilitation process. IMPACT: Mapping methodology provides a novel perspective of mechanisms of healthcare facilitation, notably how sensemaking, trust, and normalization contribute to quality improvement. This method may also enable more efficient and impactful hypothesis-testing and application of complex implementation strategies, with high relevance for lower-resourced settings, to inform effective innovation uptake.

Indexed as

FacilitationImplementation strategiesMechanism mappingQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID37194084
PMCPMC10190070
OpenAlexW4376871114

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.