Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review

被引:94
作者
Proctor, Enola K. K. [1 ]
Bunger, Alicia C. C. [2 ]
Lengnick-Hall, Rebecca [1 ]
Gerke, Donald R. R. [3 ]
Martin, Jared K. K. [4 ]
Phillips, Rebecca J. J. [5 ]
Swanson, Julia C. C. [6 ]
机构
[1] Washington Univ, Brown Sch, St Louis, MO 63130 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Coll Social Work, Columbus, OH USA
[3] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Coll Arts & Sci, Dept Social Work, Birmingham, AL USA
[4] Ohio State Univ, Coll Educ & Human Ecol, Columbus, OH USA
[5] Western Oregon Univ, Coll Liberal Arts & Sci, Monmouth, OR USA
[6] Washington Univ, Sch Med, Dept Psychiat, St Louis, MO USA
关键词
Acceptability; Adoption; Appropriateness; Feasibility; Fidelity; Implementation cost; Penetration; Sustainability; Implementation outcome; SCIENCE; READINESS; PROTOCOL; HOME;
D O I
10.1186/s13012-023-01286-z
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundProctor and colleagues' 2011 paper proposed a taxonomy of eight implementation outcomes and challenged the field to address a research agenda focused on conceptualization, measurement, and theory building. Ten years later, this paper maps the field's progress in implementation outcomes research. This scoping review describes how each implementation outcome has been studied, research designs and methods used, and the contexts and settings represented in the current literature. We also describe the role of implementation outcomes in relation to implementation strategies and other outcomes.MethodsArksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews guided our methods. Using forward citation tracing, we identified all literature citing the 2011 paper. We conducted our search in the Web of Science (WOS) database and added citation alerts sent to the first author from the publisher for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. This produced 1346 titles and abstracts. Initial abstract screening yielded 480 manuscripts, and full-text review yielded 400 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria (empirical assessment of at least one implementation outcome).ResultsSlightly more than half (52.1%) of included manuscripts examined acceptability. Fidelity (39.3%), feasibility (38.6%), adoption (26.5%), and appropriateness (21.8%) were also commonly examined. Penetration (16.0%), sustainability (15.8%), and cost (7.8%) were less frequently examined. Thirty-two manuscripts examined implementation outcomes not included in the original taxonomy. Most studies took place in healthcare (45.8%) or behavioral health (22.5%) organizations. Two-thirds used observational designs. We found little evidence of progress in testing the relationships between implementation strategies and implementation outcomes, leaving us ill-prepared to know how to achieve implementation success. Moreover, few studies tested the impact of implementation outcomes on other important outcome types, such as service systems and improved individual or population health.ConclusionsOur review presents a comprehensive snapshot of the research questions being addressed by existing implementation outcomes literature and reveals the need for rigorous, analytic research and tests of strategies for attaining implementation outcomes in the next 10 years of outcomes research.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 69 条
  • [1] Reviews of attitude research in implementation science require comprehensiveness, accuracy, and specificity
    Aarons, Gregory A.
    [J]. IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2022, 17 (01)
  • [2] Advancing a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors
    Aarons, Gregory A.
    Hurlburt, Michael
    Horwitz, Sarah McCue
    [J]. ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2011, 38 (01) : 4 - 23
  • [3] Quantitative measures of health policy implementation determinants and outcomes: a systematic review
    Allen, Peg
    Pilar, Meagan
    Walsh-Bailey, Callie
    Hooley, Cole
    Mazzucca, Stephanie
    Lewis, Cara C.
    Mettert, Kayne D.
    Dorsey, Caitlin N.
    Purtle, Jonathan
    Kepper, Maura M.
    Baumann, Ana A.
    Brownson, Ross C.
    [J]. IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2020, 15 (01)
  • [4] Arksey H., 2005, INT J SOC RES METHOD, V8, P19, DOI [10.1080/1364557032000119616, DOI 10.1080/1364557032000119616]
  • [5] Reframing implementation science to address inequities in healthcare delivery
    Baumann, Ana A.
    Cabassa, Leopoldo J.
    [J]. BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [6] A model for rigorously applying the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework in the design and measurement of a large scale collaborative multi-site study
    Becan J.E.
    Bartkowski J.P.
    Knight D.K.
    Wiley T.R.A.
    DiClemente R.
    Ducharme L.
    Welsh W.N.
    Bowser D.
    McCollister K.
    Hiller M.
    Spaulding A.C.
    Flynn P.M.
    Swartzendruber A.
    Dickson M.F.
    Fisher J.H.
    Aarons G.A.
    [J]. Health & Justice, 6 (1)
  • [7] Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem
    Beidas, Rinad S.
    Dorsey, Shannon
    Lewis, Cara C.
    Lyon, Aaron R.
    Powell, Byron J.
    Purtle, Jonathan
    Saldana, Lisa
    Shelton, Rachel C.
    Stirman, Shannon Wiltsey
    Lane-Fall, Meghan B.
    [J]. IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2022, 17 (01)
  • [8] Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity
    Brownson, Ross C.
    Kumanyika, Shiriki K.
    Kreuter, Matthew W.
    Haire-Joshu, Debra
    [J]. IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2021, 16 (01)
  • [9] Bunger AC, 2020, HUM SERV ORGAN MANAG, P32
  • [10] Implementing traumatic brain injury screening in behavioral healthcare: protocol for a prospective mixed methods study
    Coxe-Hyzak, Kathryn A.
    Bunger, Alicia C.
    Bogner, Jennifer
    Davis, Alan K.
    Corrigan, John D.
    [J]. IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS, 2022, 3 (01):