Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-Country Analysis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

2 Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

3 Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

4 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

5 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

6 Faculty of Health, School of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

7 IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada

8 Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

9 Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada

10 School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

11 School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

12 Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

13 McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

14 University College London, London, UK

15 Ontario Ministry of Health and LongTerm Care, Toronto, ON, Canada

16 University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Abstract

Background 
Context is recognized as important to successful knowledge translation (KT) in health settings. What is meant by context, however, is poorly understood. The purpose of the current study was to elicit tacit knowledge about what is perceived to constitute context by conducting interviews with a variety of health system stakeholders internationally so as to compile a comprehensive list of contextual attributes and their features relevant to KT in healthcare.
 
Methods 
A descriptive qualitative study design was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health system stakeholders (change agents/KT specialists and KT researchers) in four countries: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Interview transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic content analysis in four steps: (1) selection of utterances describing context, (2) coding of features of context, (3) categorizing of features into attributes of context, (4) comparison of attributes and features by: country, KT experience, and role.
 
Results 
A total of 39 interviews were conducted. We identified 66 unique features of context, categorized into 16 attributes. One attribute, Facility Characteristics, was not represented in previously published KT frameworks. We found instances of all 16 attributes in the interviews irrespective of country, level of experience with KT, and primary role (change agent/KT specialist vs. KT researcher), revealing robustness and transferability of the attributes identified. We also identified 30 new context features (across 13 of the 16 attributes).
 
Conclusion 
The findings from this study represent an important advancement in the KT field; we provide much needed conceptual clarity in context, which is essential to the development of common assessment tools to measure context to determine which context attributes and features are more or less important in different contexts for improving KT success.

Highlights

 

Commentaries Published on this Paper 

 

  • Conceptualizing Context and Intervention as a System in Implementation Science: Learning From Complexity Theory; Comment on “Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-country Analysis”

         Abstract | PDF

 

  • Six Honest Serving Matters, Teaching Us all We Need to Know About Context in Knowledge Implementation?; Comment on "Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-Country Analysis"

         Abstract | PDF

 

  • Future Directions for Providing Conceptual Clarity Related to Context in Implementation; Comment on “Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-Country Analysis”

         Abstract | PDF

 

  • Context Matters in Evidence Implementation Globally; Comment on “Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-Country Analysis”

          Abstract | PDF

 

  • Policy-Making Context Matters, But Can (and Should) It Be Operationalised?; Comment on “Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-Country Analysis”

         Abstract | PDF

 

  • Context Matters, So How Do We Get Better at Working With Context in Implementation Research and Practice?; Comment on “Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-country Analysis”

         Abstract | PDF

 

  • How and Why Context Matters: A Personal Reflection; Comment on “Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-Country Analysis”

         Abstract | PDF

 

  • Optimising the Conceptualisation of Context; Comment on “Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-country Analysis”

         Abstract | PDF

 

Authors' Response to the Commentaries

  •  Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Response to Recent Commentaries

         Abstract | PDF

 

Keywords

References

  1. Lang ES, Wyer PC, Haynes RB. Knowledge translation: closing the evidence-to-practice gap. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(3):355-363. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.08.022
  2. Lauer MS, Skarlatos S. Translational research for cardiovascular diseases at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: moving from bench to bedside and from bedside to community. Circulation. 2010;121(7):929-933. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.109.917948
  3. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635-2645. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa022615
  4. Schuster MA, McGlynn EA, Brook RH. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76(4):517-563. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00105
  5. Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):II46-54. doi:10.1097/00005650-200108002-00003
  6. Villar J, Carroli G, Gülmezoglu AM. The gap between evidence and practice in maternal healthcare. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;75 Suppl 1:S47-54.
  7. Mellis C. Evidence-based medicine: what has happened in the past 50 years? J Paediatr Child Health. 2015;51(1):65-68. doi:10.1111/jpc.12800
  8. Straus SE, McAlister FA. Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms. CMAJ. 2000;163(7):837-841.
  9. Implementation Science. About. 2020. https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/about.
  10. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0
  11. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
  12. Backer TE. Knowledge utilization: the third wave. Knowledge. 1991;12(3):225-240. doi:10.1177/107554709101200303
  13. Landry R, Amara N, Lamari M. Climbing the ladder of research utilization: evidence from social science research. Sci Commun. 2001;22(4):396-422. doi:10.1177/1075547001022004003
  14. Rich RF, Oh CH. The utilization of policy research. In: Nagel S, ed. Encyclopedia of Policy Studies. 2nd ed. New York: CRC Press; 1994:69-92.
  15. Dogherty EJ, Harrison MB, Graham ID. Facilitation as a role and process in achieving evidence-based practice in nursing: a focused review of concept and meaning. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2010;7(2):76-89. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2010.00186.x
  16. Kimberly J, Cook JM. Organizational measurement and the implementation of innovations in mental health services. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008;35(1-2):11-20. doi:10.1007/s10488-007-0143-x
  17. Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye Perry B. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85(4):729-768. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00506.x
  18. Squires JE, Estabrooks CA, O'Rourke HM, Gustavsson P, Newburn-Cook CV, Wallin L. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2011;6:83. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-83
  19. Squires JE, Estabrooks CA, Gustavsson P, Wallin L. Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: a systematic review update. Implement Sci. 2011;6:1. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-1
  20. Squires JE, Hutchinson AM, Boström AM, O'Rourke HM, Cobban SJ, Estabrooks CA. To what extent do nurses use research in clinical practice? a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2011;6:21. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-21
  21. Glaser EM, Abelson HH, Garrison K. Putting Knowledge to Use: Facilitating the Diffusion of Knowledge and the Implementation of Planned Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1983.
  22. Lewis CC, Fischer S, Weiner BJ, Stanick C, Kim M, Martinez RG. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci. 2015;10:155. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0342-x
  23. Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-22
  24. LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M. The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:751. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-751
  25. Reichenpfader U, Carlfjord S, Nilsen P. Leadership in evidence-based practice: a systematic review. Leadersh Health Serv (Bradf Engl). 2015;28(4):298-316. doi:10.1108/lhs-08-2014-0061
  26. Wozney L, McGrath PJ, Gehring ND, et al. eMental healthcare technologies for anxiety and depression in childhood and adolescence: systematic review of studies reporting implementation outcomes. JMIR Ment Health. 2018;5(2):e48. doi:10.2196/mental.9655
  27. Li SA, Jeffs L, Barwick M, Stevens B. Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):72. doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0734-5
  28. De Vries H, Bekkers V, Tummers L. Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda. Public Adm. 2016;94(1):146-166. doi:10.1111/padm.12209
  29. Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, et al. The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):500-559. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00611.x
  30. Lau R, Stevenson F, Ong BN, et al. Achieving change in primary care--causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews. Implement Sci. 2016;11:40. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4
  31. Ovretveit J. Change Achievement Success Indicators (CASI). Stockholm, Sweden: Karolinska Institute Medical Management; 2004.
  32. 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. doi:10.1097/00001786-200410000-00002
  33. May C, Finch T, Mair F, et al. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:148. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-7-148
  34. Berta W, Ginsburg L, Gilbart E, Lemieux-Charles L, Davis D. What, why, and how care protocols are implemented in Ontario nursing homes. Can J Aging. 2013;32(1):73-85. doi:10.1017/s0714980813000081
  35. Fleuren MA, Paulussen TG, Van Dommelen P, Van Buuren S. Towards a measurement instrument for determinants of innovations. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26(5):501-510. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzu060
  36. McDonald KM, Schultz EM, Chang C. Evaluating the state of quality-improvement science through evidence synthesis: insights from the closing the quality gap series. Perm J. 2013;17(4):52-61. doi:10.7812/tpp/13-010
  37. Dixon-Woods M. The Problem of Context in Quality Improvement. London: The Health Foundation; 2014.
  38. Estabrooks CA. Translating research into practice: implications for organizations and administrators. Can J Nurs Res. 2003;35(3):53-68.
  39. Hutchinson AM, Mallidou AA, Toth F, Cummings GG, Schalm C, Estabrooks CA. Review and Synthesis of Literature Examining Characteristics of Organizational Context that Influence Knowledge Translation in Healthcare: Technical Report. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta; 2010.
  40. Meijers JM, Janssen MA, Cummings GG, Wallin L, Estabrooks CA, R YGH. Assessing the relationships between contextual factors and research utilization in nursing: systematic literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2006;55(5):622-635. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03954.x
  41. French B. Contextual factors influencing research use in nursing. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2005;2(4):172-183. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2005.00034.x
  42. 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. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-37
  43. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(1):26-33. doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155
  44. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
  45. Champagne F. Discussion Paper No.39: The Ability to Manage Change in Health Care Organizations. Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada; 2002.
  46. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13-24. doi:10.1002/chp.47
  47. McNulty T, Ferlie E. Reengineering Health Care: The Complexities of Organizational Transformation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.
  48. Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998;7(3):149-158. doi:10.1136/qshc.7.3.149
  49. Kitson AL, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A. Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. Implement Sci. 2008;3:1. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-1
  50. Flottorp SA, Oxman AD, Krause J, et al. A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci. 2013;8:35. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-35
  51. Brennan SE, Bosch M, Buchan H, Green SE. Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):121. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-121
  52. Estabrooks CA, Squires JE, Cummings GG, Birdsell JM, Norton PG. Development and assessment of the Alberta Context Tool. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:234. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-234
  53. Helfrich CD, Li YF, Sharp ND, Sales AE. Organizational readiness to change assessment (ORCA): development of an instrument based on the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci. 2009;4:38. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-38
  54. McCormack B, McCarthy G, Wright J, Slater P, Coffey A. Development and testing of the Context Assessment Index (CAI). Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2009;6(1):27-35. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2008.00130.x
  55. Hartveit M, Hovlid E, Nordin MHA, et al. Measuring implementation: development of the implementation process assessment tool (IPAT). BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):721. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4496-0
  56. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5 ed ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
  57. Rycroft-Malone J, Kitson A, Harvey G, et al. Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(2):174-180. doi:10.1136/qhc.11.2.174
  58. Harvey G, Kitson A. PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci. 2016;11:33. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0398-2
  59. Squires JE, Graham I, Bashir K, et al. Understanding context: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(12):3448-3470. doi:10.1111/jan.14165
  60. Wensing M. The Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases (TICD) project: introduction and main findings. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):5. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0536-x
  61. Squires JE, Aloisio LD, Grimshaw JM, et al. Attributes of context relevant to healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice: a multi-study analysis. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):52. doi:10.1186/s13012-019-0900-8
  62. Goodman LA. Snowball sampling. Ann Math Statist. 1961;32(1):148-170. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177705148
  63. Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, et al. What is an adequate sample size? operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25(10):1229-1245. doi:10.1080/08870440903194015
  64. Sibley KM, Roche PL, Bell CP, Temple B, Wittmeier KDM. A descriptive qualitative examination of knowledge translation practice among health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):627. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2573-9
  65. Kuzel AJ. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications; 1999:33-45.
  66. Squires JE, Graham N, Coughlin M, et al. Barriers and enablers to organ donation after circulatory determination of death: a qualitative study exploring the beliefs of frontline intensive care unit professionals and organ donor coordinators. Transplant Direct. 2018;4(7):e368. doi:10.1097/txd.0000000000000805
  67. QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software (Version 10). 2012.
  68. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334-340. doi:10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23:43.0.co;2-g
  69. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
  70. Benner P, Tanner C, Chesla C. Expertise in Nursing Practice: Caring, Clinical Judgment, and Ethics. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2009.
  71. Gibbs GR. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Sage; 2008.
  72. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. But is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation. 1986;1986(30):73-84. doi:10.1002/ev.1427
  73. Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1189-1208.
  74. Beidas RS, Stewart RE, Adams DR, et al. A multi-level examination of stakeholder perspectives of implementation of evidence-based practices in a large urban publicly-funded mental health system. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016;43(6):893-908. doi:10.1007/s10488-015-0705-2
  75. Harvey G, Jas P, Walshe K. Analysing organisational context: case studies on the contribution of absorptive capacity theory to understanding inter-organisational variation in performance improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(1):48-55. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-002928
  76. Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Westbrook JI, Pawsey M, Mumford V, Braithwaite J. Stakeholder perspectives on implementing accreditation programs: a qualitative study of enabling factors. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:437. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-437
  77. Holtkamp KC, Vos EM, Rigter T, Lakeman P, Henneman L, Cornel MC. Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of genetic carrier screening in a changing landscape. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):146. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2083-9
  78. Muellmann S, Steenbock B, De Cocker K, et al. Views of policy makers and health promotion professionals on factors facilitating implementation and maintenance of interventions and policies promoting physical activity and healthy eating: results of the DEDIPAC project. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):932. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4929-9
  79. Renz AD, Conrad DA, Watts CA. Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of shared decision making: a qualitative data analysis. Int J Healthc Manag. 2013;6(2):122-131. doi:10.1179/2047971912Y.0000000027
  80. Schneider JL, Davis J, Kauffman TL, et al. Stakeholder perspectives on implementing a universal Lynch syndrome screening program: a qualitative study of early barriers and facilitators. Genet Med. 2016;18(2):152-161. doi:10.1038/gim.2015.43
  81. Palinkas LA, Schoenwald SK, Hoagwood K, Landsverk J, Chorpita BF, Weisz JR. An ethnographic study of implementation of evidence-based treatments in child mental health: first steps. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(7):738-746. doi:10.1176/ps.2008.59.7.738
  82. Hamilton AB, Brunner J, Cain C, et al. Engaging multilevel stakeholders in an implementation trial of evidence-based quality improvement in VA women's health primary care. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(3):478-485. doi:10.1007/s13142-017-0501-5
  83. Ritchie MJ, Parker LE, Edlund CN, Kirchner JE. Using implementation facilitation to foster clinical practice quality and adherence to evidence in challenged settings: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):294. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2217-0
  84. Squires JE, Graham ID, Hutchinson AM, et al. Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2015;10:135. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0325-y
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 8
August 2022
Pages 1373-1390

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 May 2020
  • Revise Date: 05 February 2021
  • Accept Date: 16 March 2021
  • First Publish Date: 01 May 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics