Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Implementation Science
    • You have access
    • Open access
  • Cited by 30
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
October 2022
Print publication year:
2022
Online ISBN:
9781009237055
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009237055
Creative Commons:
Creative Common License - CC Creative Common License - BY Creative Common License - NC Creative Common License - ND
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/creativelicenses
Subjects:
Medicine: General Interest, Medicine
Series:
Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare
Information

Book description

This Element introduces and critically reflects on the contribution of implementation science to healthcare improvement efforts. Grounded in several disciplines, implementation science is the study of strategies to promote the uptake of evidence-based interventions into healthcare practice and policy. The field's focus is threefold. First, it encompasses theory and empirical research focused on exploring, identifying, and understanding the systems, behaviours, and practices that influence successful implementation. Second, it examines the evaluation of strategies to address barriers or enablers to implementation in a given context. Last, it increasingly seeks to understand the process of implementation itself: what actually gets implemented, and when, why, and how? Despite the growing body of evidence, challenges remain. Many important messages remain buried in the literature, and their impact on implementation efforts in routine practice may be limited. The challenge is not just to get evidence into practice, but also to get implementation science into practice. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

References

References

1.Eccles, MP, Mittman, BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci 2006; 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.
2.Proctor, E, Silmere, H, Raghavan, R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011; 38: 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
3.Prasad, V, Ioannidis, JP. Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices. Implement Sci 2014; 9: 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-1.
4.Norton, WE, Chambers, DA. Unpacking the complexities of de-implementing inappropriate health interventions. Implement Sci 2020; 15: 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0960-9.
5.Craig, P, Dieppe, P, Macintyre, S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008; 337: a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655.
6.Moore, GF, Audrey, S, Barker, M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015; 350: h1258. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258.
7.Roberts, MC, Kennedy, AE, Chambers, DA, Khoury, MJ. The current state of implementation science in genomic medicine: opportunities for improvement. Genet Med 2017; 19: 858–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.210.
8.Patey, AM, Hurt, CS, Grimshaw, JM, Francis, JJ. Changing behaviour ‘more or less’ – do theories of behaviour inform strategies for implementation and de-implementation? A critical interpretive synthesis. Implement Sci 2018; 13: 134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0826-6.
9.van Bodegom-Vos, L, Davidoff, F, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Implementation and de-implementation: two sides of the same coin? BMJ Qual Saf 2017; 26: 495–501. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005473.
10.Norton, WE, Chambers, DA, Kramer, BS. Conceptualizing de-implementation in cancer care delivery. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37: 93–6. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.18.00589.
11.Grimshaw, JM, Patey, AM, Kirkham, KR, et al. De-implementing wisely: developing the evidence base to reduce low-value care. BMJ Qual Saf 2020; 29: 409. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010060.
12.Spiegelhalter, DJ. Surgical audit: statistical lessons from Nightingale and Codman. J Roy Stat Soc Ser A (Stat Soc) 1999; 162: 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-985X.00120.
13.Codman, EA. The classic: a study in hospital efficiency: as demonstrated by the case report of first five years of private hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 1778–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2751-3.
14.Glover, JA. The incidence of tonsillectomy in school children: (Section of Epidemiology and State Medicine). Pro R Soc Medicine 1938; 31: 1219–36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19991659 (accessed 8 April 2022).
15.Donabedian, A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q 2005 (reprinted from 1966); 83: 691–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x.
16.Lembcke, PA. Medical auditing by scientific methods: illustrated by major female pelvic surgery. JAMA 1956; 162: 646–55. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1956.72970240010009.
17.Mitchell, MW, Fowkes, FG. Audit reviewed: does feedback on performance change clinical behaviour? J R Coll Physicians Lond 1985; 19: 251–4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4067901 (accessed 8 April 2022).
18.Grol, R, Mokkink, H, Schellevis, F. The effects of peer review in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract 1988; 38: 10–3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3204541 (accessed 8 April 2022).
19.Ivers, N, Jamtvedt, G, Flottorp, S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6: CD000259. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3.
20.Ivers, N, Audit, Foy R., feedback, and behaviour change. In: Dixon-Woods, M, Brown, K, Marjanovic, S, et al., editors. Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; forthcoming.
21.Rogers, EM. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. London: Free Press; 2003.
22.Greenhalgh, T, Robert, G, Bate, P, Macfarlane, F, Kyriakidou, O. Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organisations: A Systematic Literature Review. Oxford: Blackwell; 2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470987407.
23.Coleman, J, Katz, E, Menzel, H. The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry 1957; 20: 253–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785979.
24.Brook, RH, Chassin, MR, Fink, A, et al. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1986; 2: 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462300002774.
25.Woolf, SH, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Interim Manual for Clinical Practice Guideline Development. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1991.
26.Lomas, J, Anderson, GM, Domnick-Pierre, K, et al. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1306–11. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198911093211906.
27.Lomas, J. Diffusion, dissemination, and implementation: who should do what? Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993; 703: 226–35; discussion 235–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26351.x.
28.Soumerai, SB, McLaughlin, TJ, Avorn, J. Improving drug prescribing in primary care: a critical analysis of the experimental literature. Milbank Q 1989; 67: 268–317. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2698446 (accessed 8 April 2022).
29.Grol, R. Implementing guidelines in general practice care. Qual Health Care 1992; 1: 184–91. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.1.3.184.
30.Grimshaw, JM, Russell, IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993; 342: 1317–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)92244-n.
31.Sechrest, L, Backer, TE, Rogers, EM, Campbell, TF, Grady, ML. Effective Dissemination of Clinical Health Information: Conference Summary. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1994. AHCPR report no. 95-0015.
32.NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Implementing clinical practice guidelines: can guidelines be used to improve clinical practice? Eff Health Care 1994; 8. www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/ehc18.pdf (accessed 8 April 2022).
33.NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Getting evidence into practice. Eff Health Care 1999; 5: 1. www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/ehc51.pdf (accessed 8 April 2022).
34.Michie, S, Johnston, M. Changing clinical behaviour by making guidelines specific. BMJ 2004; 328: 343–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7435.343.
35.Straus, SE, Brouwers, M, Johnson, D, et al. Core competencies in the science and practice of knowledge translation: description of a Canadian strategic training initiative. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 127. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-127.
36.Proctor, EK, Chambers, DA. Training in dissemination and implementation research: a field-wide perspective. Transl Behav Med 2017; 7: 624–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0406-8.
37.Stetler, CB, Mittman, BS, Francis, J. Overview of the VA quality enhancement research initiative (QUERI) and QUERI theme articles: QUERI series. Implement Sci 2008; 3: 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-8.
38.Atkins, D, Kilbourne, AM, Shulkin, D. Moving from discovery to system-wide change: the role of research in a learning health care system: experience from three decades of health systems research in the Veterans Health Administration. Annu Rev Public Health 2017; 38: 467–87. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044255.
39.Kislov, R, Wilson, PM, Knowles, S, Boaden, R. Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations. Implement Sci 2018; 13: 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y.
40.Presseau, J, McCleary, N, Lorencatto, F, et al. Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): a framework for specifying behaviour. Implement Sci 2019; 14: 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0951-x.
41.Ross, J, Stevenson, F, Lau, R, Murray, E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci 2016; 11: 146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7.
42.Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC taxonomy 2015. https://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy (accessed 8 April 2022).
43.Proctor, EK, Powell, BJ, McMillen, JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci 2013; 8: 139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139.
44.Brehaut, JC, Colquhoun, HL, Eva, KW, et al. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164: 435–41. https://doi.org/10.7326/m15-2248.
45.Shojania, KG, Jennings, A, Mayhew, A, et al. The effects of on‐screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 3: CD001096. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001096.pub2.
46.Kwan, JL, Lo, L, Ferguson, J, et al. Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2020; 370: m3216. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3216.
47.Forsetlund, L, Bjørndal, A, Rashidian, A, et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 2: CD003030. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003030.pub2.
48.O’Brien, MA, Rogers, S, Jamtvedt, G, et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 4: CD000409. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000409.pub2.
49.Harvey, G, Kitson, A. PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci 2016; 11: 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0398-2.
50.Cranley, LA, Cummings, GG, Profetto-McGrath, J, Toth, F, Estabrooks, CA. Facilitation roles and characteristics associated with research use by healthcare professionals: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e014384. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014384.
51.Flodgren, G, Eccles, MP, Shepperd, S, et al. An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 7: CD009255. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009255.
52.Mendelson, A, Kondo, K, Damberg, C, et al. The effects of pay-for-performance programs on health, health care use, and processes of care: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2017; 166: 341–53. https://doi.org/10.7326/m16-1881.
53.Flodgren, G, O’Brien, MA, Parmelli, E, Grimshaw, JM. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 6: CD000125. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000125.pub5.
54.Giguère, A, Zomahoun, HTV, Carmichael, PH, et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 8: CD004398. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004398.pub4.
55.Hulscher, ME, Schouten, LM, Grol, RP, Buchan, H. Determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives: what does the literature show? BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 22: 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000651.
56.Wells, S, Tamir, O, Gray, J, et al. Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2018; 27: 226–40. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006926.
57.Powell, BJ, Waltz, TJ, Chinman, MJ, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1.
58.Wensing, M, Grol, R. Single and combined strategies for implementing changes in primary care: a literature review. Int J Qual Health Care 1994; 6: 115–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/6.2.115.
59.Oxman, AD, Thomson, MA, Davis, DA, Haynes, RB. No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ 1995; 153: 1423–31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7585368/ (accessed 8 April 2022).
60.Ivers, NM, Grimshaw, JM, Jamtvedt, G, et al. Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29: 1534–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2913-y.
61.Lewis, CC, Boyd, MR, Walsh-Bailey, C, et al. A systematic review of empirical studies examining mechanisms of implementation in health. Implement Sci 2020; 15: 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-00983-3.
62.Wensing, M. The tailored implementation in chronic diseases (TICD) project: introduction and main findings. Implement Sci 2017; 12: 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0536-x.
63.Grimshaw, JM, Ivers, N, Linklater, S, et al. Reinvigorating stagnant science: implementation laboratories and a meta-laboratory to efficiently advance the science of audit and feedback. BMJ Qual Saf 2019; 28: 416–23. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008355.
64.Powell, BJ, Fernandez, ME, Williams, NJ, et al. Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research agenda. Front Public Health 2019; 7: 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00003.
65.Avery, AJ, Rodgers, S, Cantrill, JA, et al. A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet 2012; 379: 1310–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61817-5.
66.Grimshaw, JM, Thomas, RE, MacLennan, G, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: 6. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8060.
67.Hawe, P, Shiell, A, Riley, T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol 2009; 43: 267–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9229-9.
68.May, CR, Johnson, M, Finch, T. Implementation, context and complexity. Implement Sci 2016; 11: 141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0506-3.
69.Tabak, RG, Khoong, EC, Chambers, DA, Brownson, RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med 2012; 43: 337–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024.
70.Nilsen, P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.
71.Damschroder, LJ, Aron, DC, Keith, RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4: 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
72.Kirk, MA, Kelley, C, Yankey, N, et al. A systematic review of the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci 2016; 11: 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z.
73.Michie, S, van Stralen, MM, West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
74.Kitson, A, Harvey, G, McCormack, B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care 1998; 7: 149–58. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.7.3.149.
75.Helfrich, CD, Damschroder, LJ, Hagedorn, HJ, et al. A critical synthesis of literature on the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-82.
76.May, CR, Mair, F, Finch, T, et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: Normalization Process Theory. Implement Sci 2009; 4: 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-29.
77.May, CR, Cummings, A, Girling, M, et al. Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci 2018; 13: 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1.
78.Glasgow, RE, Vogt, TM, Boles, SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999; 89: 1322–7. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322.
79.Glasgow, RE, Harden, SM, Gaglio, B, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Publ Health 2019; 7: 64. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064.
80.Cane, J, O’Connor, D, Michie, S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci 2012; 7: 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-37.
81.Atkins, L, Francis, J, Islam, R, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci 2017; 12: 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9.
82.Michie, S, Johnston, M, Abraham, C, et al. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14: 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.
83.Moore, JE, Rashid, S, Park, JS, Khan, S, Straus, SE. Longitudinal evaluation of a course to build core competencies in implementation practice. Implement Sci 2018; 13: 106. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0800-3.
84.Birken, SA, Rohweder, CL, Powell, BJ, et al. T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implement Sci 2018; 13: 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4.
85.Lynch, EA, Mudge, A, Knowles, S, et al. ‘There is nothing so practical as a good theory’: a pragmatic guide for selecting theoretical approaches for implementation projects. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18: 857. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3671-z.
86.Strifler, L, Barnsley, JM, Hillmer, M, Straus, SE. Identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks: a qualitative study to inform the development of a decision support tool. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020; 20: 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01128-8.
87.Moullin, JC, Dickson, KS, Stadnick, NA, et al. Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice. Implement Sci Commun 2020; 1: 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00023-7.
88.Foley, T, Horwitz, L. Learning health systems. In: Dixon-Woods, M, Brown, K, Marjanovic, S, et al., editors. Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; forthcoming.
89.US Department of Veterans Affairs. QUERI – Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. www.queri.research.va.gov/default.cfm (accessed 8 April 2022).
90.Stetler, CB, Mittman, BS, Francis, J, Eccles, M, Graham, ID, editors. US Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI). Implement Sci 2008–09. www.biomedcentral.com/collections/1748-5908-Que (accessed 8 April 2022).
91.O’Hanlon, C, Huang, C, Sloss, E, et al. Comparing VA and non-VA quality of care: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2017; 32: 105–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3775-2.
92.Braganza, MZ, Kilbourne, AM. The quality enhancement research initiative (QUERI) impact framework: measuring the real-world impact of implementation science. J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36: 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06143-z.
93.Boulton, R, Sandall, J, Sevdalis, N. The cultural politics of ‘implementation science’. J Med Humanit 2020; 41: 379–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-020-09607-9.
94.Wensing, M, Grol, R. Knowledge translation in health: how implementation science could contribute more. BMC Med 2019; 17: 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1322-9.
95.Kislov, R, Pope, C, Martin, GP, Wilson, PM. Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implement Sci 2019; 14: 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0957-4.
96.Patton, MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2015.
97.Lewis, CC, Klasnja, P, Powell, BJ, et al. From classification to causality: advancing understanding of mechanisms of change in implementation science. Front Public Health 2018; 6: 136. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00136.
98.Graham, ID, Logan, J, Harrison, MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006; 26: 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.47.
99.Hedström, P, Ylikoski, P. Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annu Rev Sociol 2010; 36: 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632.
100.Berta, W, Cranley, L, Dearing, JW, et al. Why (we think) facilitation works: insights from organizational learning theory. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0323-0.
101.Kislov, R, Humphreys, J, Harvey, G. How do managerial techniques evolve over time? The distortion of ‘facilitation’ in healthcare service improvement. Publ Manage Rev 2017; 19: 1165–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1266022.
102.Seers, K, Rycroft-Malone, J, Cox, K, et al. Facilitating implementation of research evidence (FIRE): an international cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate two models of facilitation informed by the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci 2018; 13: 137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0831-9.
103.Rycroft-Malone, J, Seers, K, Eldh, AC, et al. A realist process evaluation within the Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE) cluster randomised controlled international trial: an exemplar. Implement Sci 2018; 13: 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0.
104.Harvey, G, McCormack, B, Kitson, A, Lynch, E, Titchen, A. Designing and implementing two facilitation interventions within the ‘Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE)’ study: a qualitative analysis from an external facilitators’ perspective. Implement Sci 2018; 13: 141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0812-z.
105.Dickinson, H, Sullivan, H. Towards a general theory of collaborative performance: the importance of efficacy and agency. Public Admin 2014; 92: 161–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12048.
106.Hoomans, T, Severens, JL. Economic evaluation of implementation strategies in health care. Implement Sci 2014; 9: 168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0168-y.
107.Street, A, Health economics, Gutacker N.. In: Dixon-Woods, M, Brown, K, Marjanovic, S, et al., editors. Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; forthcoming.
108.Vale, L, Thomas, R, MacLennan, G, Grimshaw, J. Systematic review of economic evaluations and cost analyses of guideline implementation strategies. Eur J Health Econ 2007; 8: 111–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-007-0043-8.
109.Roberts, SLE, Healey, A, Sevdalis, N. Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields-a systematic literature review. Implement Sci 2019; 14: 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0901-7.
110.Walshe, K. Pseudoinnovation: the development and spread of healthcare quality improvement methodologies. Int J Qual Health Care 2009; 21: 153–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzp012.
111.De Silva, MJ, Breuer, E, Lee, L, et al. Theory of change: a theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions. Trials 2014; 15: 267. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-267.
112.Ivers, NM, Grimshaw, JM. Reducing research waste with implementation laboratories. Lancet 2016; 388: 547–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31256-9.
113.Reed, JE, Howe, C, Doyle, C, Bell, D. Simple rules for evidence translation in complex systems: a qualitative study. BMC Med 2018; 16: 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1076-9.
114.O’Hara, JK, Aase, K, Waring, J. Scaffolding our systems? Patients and families ‘reaching in’ as a source of healthcare resilience. BMJ Qual Saf 2019; 28: 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008216.
115.Robert, G, Locock, L, Williams, O, et al. Co-producing and co-designing. In: Dixon-Woods, M, Brown, K, Marjanovic, S, et al., editors. Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009237024.
116., RC, Colditz, GA, Proctor, EK, editors. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751877.001.0001.
117.National Cancer Institute. Implementation Science at a Glance: A Guide for Cancer Control Practitioners. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/is/tools/practice-tools (accessed 8 April 2022).
118.Wensing, M, Grol, R, Grimshaw, J, editors. Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Health Care, 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119488620.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.