Search

Background: The 'Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence' study found no significant differences between sites that received two types of facilitation support and those that did not on the primary outcome of documented compliance with guideline recommendations. Process evaluation highlighted factors that influenced local, internal facilitators' ability to enact the roles as envisaged. In this paper, the external facilitators responsible for designing and delivering the two types of facilitation intervention analyse why the interventions proved difficult to implement as expected, including the challenge of balancing fidelity and adaptation.Methods: Qualitative data sources included notes from monthly internal-external facilitator teleconference meetings, from closing events for the two facilitation interventions and summary data analyses from repeated interviews with 16 internal facilitators. Deductive and inductive data analysis was led by an independent researcher to evaluate how facilitation in practice compared to the logic pathways designed to guide fidelity in the delivery of the interventions.Results: The planned facilitation interventions did not work as predicted. Difficulties were encountered in each of the five elements of the logic pathway: recruitment and selection of appropriate internal facilitators, preparation for the role, ability to apply facilitation knowledge and skills at a local level, support and mentorship from external facilitators via monthly teleconferences, working collaboratively and enabling colleagues to implement guideline recommendations. Moreover, problems were cumulative and created tensions for the external facilitators in terms of balancing the logic pathway with a more real-world, flexible and iterative approach to facilitation.Conclusion: Evaluating an intervention that is fluid and dynamic within the methodology of a randomised controlled trial is complex and challenging. At a practical level, relational aspects of facilitation are critically important. It is essential to recruit and retain individuals with the appropriate set of skills and characteristics, explicit support from managerial leaders and accessible mentorship from more experienced facilitators. At a methodological level, there is a need for attention to the balance between fidelity and adaptation of interventions. For future studies, we suggest a theoretical approach to fidelity, with a focus on mechanisms, informed by prospective use of process evaluation data and more detailed investigation of the context-facilitation dynamic.

Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and a significant marker of morbidity and mortality. Its management in primary care is essential for maintenance of cardiovascular health, avoidance of acute kidney injury (AKI) and delay in progression to end-stage renal disease. Although many guidelines and interventions have been established, there is global evidence of an implementation gap, including variable identification rates and low patient communication and awareness. The objective of this study is to understand the factors enabling and constraining the implementation of CKD interventions in primary care. Methods A rapid realist review was conducted that involved a primary literature search of three databases to identify existing CKD interventions in primary care between the years 2000 and 2014. A secondary search was performed as an iterative process and included bibliographic and grey literature searches of reference lists, authors and research groups. A systematic approach to data extraction using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) illuminated key mechanisms and contextual factors that affected implementation. Results Our primary search returned 710 articles that were narrowed down to 18 relevant CKD interventions in primary care. Our findings suggested that effective management of resources (encompassing many types) was a significant contextual factor enabling or constraining the functioning of mechanisms. Three key intervention features were identified from the many that contributed to successful implementation. Firstly, it was important to frame CKD interventions appropriately, such as within the context of cardiovascular health and diabetes. This enabled buy-in and facilitated an understanding of the significance of CKD and the need for intervention. Secondly, interventions that were compatible with existing practices or patients’ everyday lives were readily accepted. In contrast, new systems that could not be integrated were abandoned as they were viewed as inconvenient, generating more work. Thirdly, ownership of the feedback process allowed users to make individualised improvements to the intervention to suit their needs. Conclusions Our rapid realist review identified mechanisms that need to be considered in order to optimise the implementation of interventions to improve the management of CKD in primary care. Further research into the factors that enable prolonged sustainability and cost-effectiveness is required for efficient resource utilisation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0413-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Increasingly, it is being suggested that translational gaps might be eradicated or narrowed by\ud bringing research users and producers closer together, a theory that is largely untested. This paper reports a\ud national study to fill a gap in the evidence about the conditions, processes and outcomes related to collaboration\ud and implementation.\ud Methods: A longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative methods case studies was conducted with\ud three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research in Care (England). Data were collected over four\ud rounds of theory development, refinement and testing. Over 200 participants were involved in semi-structured\ud interviews, non-participant observations of events and meetings, and stakeholder engagement. A combined\ud inductive and deductive data analysis process was focused on proposition refinement and testing iteratively over\ud data collection rounds.\ud Results: The quality of existing relationships between higher education and local health service, and views about\ud whether implementation was a collaborative act, created a path dependency. Where implementation was\ud perceived to be removed from service and there was a lack of organisational connections, this resulted in a focus\ud on knowledge production and transfer, rather than co-production. The collaborations’ architectures were\ud counterproductive because they did not facilitate connectivity and had emphasised professional and epistemic\ud boundaries. More distributed leadership was associated with greater potential for engagement. The creation of\ud boundary spanning roles was the most visible investment in implementation, and credible individuals in these roles\ud resulted in cross-boundary work, in facilitation and in direct impacts. The academic-practice divide played out\ud strongly as a context for motivation to engage, in that ‘what’s in it for me’ resulted in variable levels of engagement\ud along a co-operation-collaboration continuum. Learning within and across collaborations was patchy depending on\ud attention to evaluation.\ud Conclusions: These collaborations did not emerge from a vacuum, and they needed time to learn and develop.\ud Their life cycle started with their position on collaboration, knowledge and implementation. More impactful\ud attempts at collective action in implementation might be determined by the deliberate alignment of a number of\ud features, including foundational relationships, vision, values, structures and processes and views about the nature of\ud the collaboration and implementation.

© 2014 Kislov et al. Background: Knowledge mobilisation in healthcare organisations is often carried out through relatively short-term projects dependent on limited funding, which raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of implementation and improvement. It is becoming increasingly recognised that the translation of research evidence into practice has to be supported by developing the internal capacity of healthcare organisations to engage with and apply research. This process can be supported by external knowledge mobilisation initiatives represented, for instance, by professional associations, collaborative research partnerships and implementation networks. This conceptual paper uses empirical and theoretical literature on organisational learning and dynamic capabilities to enhance our understanding of intentional capacity building for knowledge mobilisation in healthcare organisations. Discussion: The discussion is structured around the following three themes: (1) defining and classifying capacity building for knowledge mobilisation; (2) mechanisms of capability development in organisational context; and (3) individual, group and organisational levels of capability development. Capacity building is presented as a practice-based process of developing multiple skills, or capabilities, belonging to different knowledge domains and levels of complexity. It requires an integration of acquisitive learning, through which healthcare organisations acquire knowledge and skills from knowledge mobilisation experts, and experience-based learning, through which healthcare organisations adapt, absorb and modify their knowledge and capabilities through repeated practice. Although the starting point for capability development may be individual-, team- or organisation-centred, facilitation of the transitions between individual, group and organisational levels of learning within healthcare organisations will be needed. Summary: Any initiative designed to build capacity for knowledge mobilisation should consider the subsequent trajectory of newly developed knowledge and skills within the recipient healthcare organisations. The analysis leads to four principles underpinning a practice-based approach to developing multilevel knowledge mobilisation capabilities: (1) moving from 'building' capacity from scratch towards 'developing' capacity of healthcare organisations; (2) moving from passive involvement in formal education and training towards active, continuous participation in knowledge mobilisation practices; (3) moving from lower-order, project-specific capabilities towards higher-order, generic capabilities allowing healthcare organisations to adapt to change, absorb new knowledge and innovate; and (4) moving from single-level to multilevel capability development involving transitions between individual, group and organisational learning.

Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives.