How Single Is “Single” - Some Pragmatic Reflections on Single Versus Multifaceted Interventions to Facilitate Implementation; Comment on “Translating Evidence Into Healthcare Policy and Practice: Single Versus Multifaceted Implementation Strategies – Is There a Simple Answer to a Complex Question?”

Document Type: Commentary

Authors

1 School of Education, Health, and Social Studies, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden

2 Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract

An earlier overview of systematic reviews and a subsequent editorial on single-component versus multifaceted interventions to promote knowledge translation (KT) highlight complex issues in implementation science. In this supplemented commentary, further aspects are in focus; we propose examples from (KT) studies probing the issue of single interventions. A main point is that defining what is a single and what is a multifaceted intervention can be ambiguous, depending on how the intervention is conceived. Further, we suggest additional perspectives in terms of strategies to facilitate implementation. More specifically, we argue for a need to depict not only what activities are done in implementation interventions, but to unpack functions in particular contexts, in order to support the progress of implementation science.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Squires JE, Sullivan K, Eccles MP, Worswick J, Grimshaw JM. Are multifaceted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals' behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews. Implement Sci. 2014;9:152. doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6
  2. Harvey G, Kitson A. Translating evidence into healthcare policy and practice: Single versus multi-faceted implementation strategies - is there a simple answer to a complex question? Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(3):123-126. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.54
  3. Gifford WA, Davies BL, Graham ID, Tourangeau A, Woodend AK, Lefebre N. Developing leadership capacity for guideline use: a pilot cluster randomized control trial. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2013;10(1):51-65. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00254.x
  4. 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. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003030.pub2
  5. Manley K, McCormack B. Practice development: purpose, methodology, facilitation and evaluation. Nurs Crit Care. 2003;8(1):22-29.
  6. Rycroft-Malone J. The PARIHS framework--a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004;19(4):297-304.
  7. Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Chandler J, et al. The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework. Implement Sci. 2013;8:28. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-28
  8. Persson LÅ, Nga NT, Målqvist M, et al. Effect of facilitation of local maternal-and-newborn stakeholder groups on neonatal mortality: cluster-randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med 2013;10(5):e1001445. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001445
  9. Eriksson L, Duc DM, Eldh AC, et al. Lessons learned from stakeholders in a facilitation intervention targeting neonatal health in Quang Ninh province, Vietnam. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:234. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-13-234
  10. Steckler A, Linnan L, eds. Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. San Fransisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
  11. Pawson R. The Science of Evaluation. A Realist Manifesto. Los Angeles: Sage; 2013.
  12. Sundell K, Beelmann A, Hasson H, von Thiele Schwarz U. Novel programs, international adoptions, or contextual adaptations? meta-analytical results from German and Swedish intervention research. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2015. doi:10.1080/15374416.2015.1020540