Fleuren et al MIDI measurement instrument
https://doi.org/10.1093/INTQHC/MZU060…
20 pages
1 file
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
Abstract
AI
AI
This study presents the development of a MIDI measurement instrument aimed at assessing the determinants influencing the implementation of innovations in preventive child health care and education. Initially, 60 potential determinants were identified from a systematic review and subsequent empirical analyses; this list was refined to 29 key factors based on meta-analyses and expert consultations. The instrument's applicability extends beyond its initial settings, providing a structured approach to understanding the complexities involved in implementing evidence-based practices across various organizational contexts.
Related papers
BMC Medical Education, 2003
Previous studies have shown that Norwegian public health physicians do not systematically and explicitly use scientific evidence in their practice. They work in an environment that does not encourage the integration of this information in decision-making. In this study we investigate whether a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice increases the physicians' use of research information.
BMJ Open, 2022
Objective Reporting guidelines can improve dissemination and application of findings and help avoid research waste. Recent studies reveal opportunities to improve primary care (PC) reporting. Despite increasing numbers of guidelines, none exists for PC research. This study aims to prioritise candidate reporting items to inform a reporting guideline for PC research. Design Delphi study conducted by the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Working Group. Setting International online survey. Participants Interdisciplinary PC researchers and research users. Main outcome measures We drew potential reporting items from literature review and a series of international, interdisciplinary surveys. Using an anonymous, online survey, we asked participants to vote on and whether each candidate item should be included, required or recommended in a PC research reporting guideline. Items advanced to the next Delphi round if they received>50% votes to include. Analysis used descriptive statistics plus synthesis of free-text responses. Results 98/116 respondents completed round 1 (84% response rate) and 89/98 completed round 2 (91%). Respondents included a variety of healthcare professions, research roles, levels of experience and all five world regions. Round 1 presented 29 potential items, and 25 moved into round 2 after rewording and combining items and adding 2 new items. A majority of round 2 respondents voted to include 23 items (90%-100% for 11 items, 80%-89% for 3 items, 70%-79% for 3 items, 60%-69% for 3 items and 50%-59% for 3 items). Conclusion Our Delphi study identified items to guide the reporting of PC research that has broad endorsement from the community of producers and users of PC research. We will now use these results to inform the final development of the CRISP guidance for reporting PC research. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY ⇒ Research team from six nations to bring diversity to the analysis. ⇒ We included a diverse Delphi panel to include the perspectives of researchers, clinicians, educators and patients. ⇒ The Delphi surveys had a high response rate. ⇒ Most participants had English as their first language, but a large proportion of the respondents were bilingual. ⇒ There were only four clinicians who did not have another non-clinical professional role.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2019
Results 68 papers were included. There exists empirical support for six key domains which require to be addressed in the policymaking and analysis process: 1) Context 2) Process 3) Content 4) Stakeholder Consultation 5) Implementation 6) Evaluation. Failure to contextualise and integrate these six domains in problem identification, policy analysis, strategy and policy development, policy enactment and policy implementation is problematic. Conclusion There is a need to test and refine the constructs linked to the policymaking cycle taking cognisance of the context where these are developed, implemented and evaluated. Impact This review makes a novel contribution to the synthesis of evidence to inform the policymaking and analysis process. Findings illuminate the complexity of policymaking, the competing pressures involved and the importance of the local, national and international context. These findings have international relevance and provide empirical support for key criteria to guide those involved in context specific policymaking and/or the analysis of existing policy.
Systematic Reviews
Background Healthcare settings are complex, and the decision-making process is usually complicated, too. Precise use of best evidence from different sources for increasing the desired outcomes is the result of EBM. Therefore, this study aimed to map the potential facilitators and barriers to EBM in health systems to help the healthcare managers to better implement EBM in their organizations. Methods The present study was a scoping review (SR) conducted in 2020 based on the integration of the frameworks presented by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and Levac et al. (2010) considering the Joanna Briggs Institute guideline (2015). These frameworks consist of 6 steps. After finalizing the search strategy, 7 databases were searched, and the PRISMA-ScR was used to manage the retrieval and inclusion of the evidence. Microsoft Excel 2013 was used to extract the data, and the graphic description was presented. The summative analysis approach was used applying MAXQDA10. Results According to the sys...
Implementation Science, 2013
Background: Determinants of practice are factors that might prevent or enable improvements. Several checklists, frameworks, taxonomies, and classifications of determinants of healthcare professional practice have been published. In this paper, we describe the development of a comprehensive, integrated checklist of determinants of practice (the TICD checklist). Methods: We performed a systematic review of frameworks of determinants of practice followed by a consensus process. We searched electronic databases and screened the reference lists of key background documents. Two authors independently assessed titles and abstracts, and potentially relevant full text articles. We compiled a list of attributes that a checklist should have: comprehensiveness, relevance, applicability, simplicity, logic, clarity, usability, suitability, and usefulness. We assessed included articles using these criteria and collected information about the theory, model, or logic underlying how the factors (determinants) were selected, described, and grouped, the strengths and weaknesses of the checklist, and the determinants and the domains in each checklist. We drafted a preliminary checklist based on an aggregated list of determinants from the included checklists, and finalized the checklist by a consensus process among implementation researchers. Results: We screened 5,778 titles and abstracts and retrieved 87 potentially relevant papers in full text. Several of these papers had references to papers that we also retrieved in full text. We also checked potentially relevant papers we had on file that were not retrieved by the searches. We included 12 checklists. None of these were completely comprehensive when compared to the aggregated list of determinants and domains. We developed a checklist with 57 potential determinants of practice grouped in seven domains: guideline factors, individual health professional factors, patient factors, professional interactions, incentives and resources, capacity for organisational change, and social, political, and legal factors. We also developed five worksheets to facilitate the use of the checklist. Conclusions: Based on a systematic review and a consensus process we developed a checklist that aims to be comprehensive and to build on the strengths of each of the 12 included checklists. The checklist is accompanied with five worksheets to facilitate its use in implementation research and quality improvement projects.
Clinical Pediatrics, 2011
F1000Research
Aim The goal of this paper is to introduce a perspective view of the formation and application of the evidence-based management approach to investigators, managers and policymakers as to how different determinants and managerial-decision processes can be more effectively linked for the salient of healthcare organizations. Methods The author compiled this analysis on the basis of published literature and his experience as a researcher in the healthcare management. The author briefly reviews the evolution of evidence-based management in this article and designs a perspective framework for improving its production and the impact of its application in a broad variety of contexts. Results This paper can inform the global healthcare evidence-based agenda by (1) providing a framework for operational recommendations for the implementation of the healthcare evidence-based, (2) defining evidence-based management guidelines’ recommendations, and (3) enhance methods for adopting and tailoring ...
Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2016
The objective of this study was to empirically demonstrate the use of a new framework for describing the strategies used to implement quality improvement interventions and provide an example that others may follow. Implementation strategies are the specific approaches, methods, structures, and resources used to introduce and encourage uptake of a given intervention's components. Such strategies have not been regularly reported in descriptions of interventions' effectiveness, or in assessments of how proven interventions are implemented in new settings. This lack of reporting may hinder efforts to successfully translate effective interventions into "real-world" practice. A recently published framework was designed to standardize reporting on implementation strategies in the implementation science literature. We applied this framework to describe the strategies used to implement a single intervention in its original commercial care setting, and when implemented in co...
Quality in Health Care, 2000
Objectives-To investigate reactions to the use of evidence-based cardiovascular and stroke performance indicators within one primary care group. Design-Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews. Setting-Fifteen practices from a primary care group in southern England. Participants-Fifty two primary health care professionals including 29 general practitioners, 11 practice managers, and 12 practice nurses. Main outcome measures-Participants' perceptions towards and actions made in response to these indicators. The barriers and facilitators in using these indicators to change practice. Results-Barriers to the use of the indicators were their data quality and their technical specifications, including definitions of diseases such as heart failure and the threshold for interventions such as blood pressure control. Nevertheless, the indicators were suYciently credible to prompt most of those in primary care teams to reflect on some aspect of their performance. The most common response was to improve data quality through increased or improved accuracy of recording. There was a lack of a coordinated team approach to decision making. Primary care teams placed little importance on the potential for performance indicators to identify and address inequalities in services between practices. The most common barrier to change was a lack of time and resources to act upon indicators. Conclusion-For the eVective implementation of national performance indicators there are many barriers to overcome at individual, practice, and primary care group levels. Additional training and resources are required for improvements in data quality and collection, further education of all members of primary care teams, and measures to foster organisational development within practices. Unless these barriers are addressed, performance indicators could initially increase apparent variation between practices.

Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
References (3)
- Fleuren MAH, Wiefferink CH, Paulussen TGW. Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: Literature review and Delphi-study. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2004;16:107-123.
- Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T. Checklist determinanten van innovaties in gezondheidszorgorganisaties [Checklist determinants of innovations within health cate organizations].
- TSG Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen 2010;88:55-8.