T-CaST: An implementation theory comparison and selection tool

Implementation Science

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Birken, Sarah A ^a   Rohweder, Catherine L ^b   Powell, Byron J ^a   Shea, Christopher M ^a   Scott, Jennifer ^b   Leeman, Jennifer ^b   Grewe, Mary E ^b   Alexis Kirk, M ^a,c   Damschroder, Laura ^d   Aldridge, William A ^b   Haines, Emily R ^a,c   Straus, Sharon ^e   Presseau, Justin ^f,g  

^a IL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^d Personalizing Options through Veteran Engagement (PROVE) QUERI Program   (United States)

^e ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^f OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cognitive interviewing; Concept mapping; Criteria for selection; Framework; Implementation theory; Theory; Tool development

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANADA; CONCEPT MAPPING; CONSENSUS; EXERCISE; FEMALE; FIELD STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; PHYSICIAN; SCIENTIST; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; THEORETICAL STUDY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INTERVIEW; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MODELS, THEORETICAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 85057119252     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17485908     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Department of Veterans Health Administration's Quality Enhancement Research Initiative [2013] for a taxonomy of theories, frameworks, and models; https://www.queri.research.va.gov/implementation/implementationguide.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2018.
2. Nilsen P. Making sense of implement theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53.
3. GEP B. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1976;71:791-9.
4. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, Baumann AA, Hamilton AM, Santens RL. Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients. Implement Sci. 2012;7:96.
5. Moore GF, Evans RE. What theory, for whom and in which context? Reflections on the application of theory in the development and evaluation of complex population health interventions. SSM Popul Health. 2017;3:132-5.
6. Birken SA, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Haines ER, Kirk MA, Leeman J, et al. Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey. Implement Sci. 2017;12:124.
7. 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.
8. 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;14:26-33.
9. Rycroft-Malone J. The PARIHS framework -- a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004;19(4):297-304.
10. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe; 1962.
11. 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(9):1322-7.
12. Meyers DC, Durlak JA, Wandersman A. The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. Am J Community Psychol. 2012;50:462-80.
13. Wandersman A, Duffy J, Flaspohler P, Noonan R, Lubell K, Stillman L, et al. Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: the interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:171-81.
14. Strifler L, Cardoso R, McGowan J, Cogo E, Nincic V, Khan PA, et al. Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;100:92-102. Epub 2018 Apr 13.
15. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1997.
16. Sniehotta FF, Presseau J, Araújo-Soares V. Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8:1-7.
17. Kane M, Trochim WMK. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2007.
18. Trochim WMK, Kane M. Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17:187-91.
19. Rosas SR, Kane M. Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. Eval Program Plann. 2012;35:236-45.
20. Aarons GA, Wells RS, Zagursky K, Fettes DL, Palinkas LA. Implementing evidence-based practice in community mental health agencies: a multiple stakeholder analysis. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:2087-95.
21. Lobb R, Pinto AD, Lofters A. Using concept mapping in the knowledge-to-action process to compare stakeholder opinions on barriers to use of cancer screening among South Asians. Implement Sci. 2013;8:1-12.
22. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1-8.
23. Powell BJ, Stanick CF, Halko HM, Dorsey CN, Weiner BJ, Barwick MA, et al. Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping. Implement Sci. 2017;12:118.
24. Dissemination and implementation research in health PAR-16-238. 2017 https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-18-007.html. Accessed 1 May 2018.
25. Concept Systems Global Max© [ http://www.conceptsystems.com/content/view/the-concept-system.html ].
26. Trochim WMK. The reliability of concept mapping. Dallas; 1993. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/research/Reliable/reliable.htm. Accessed 1 May 2018
27. 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.
28. Grol RP, Bosch MC, Hulscher ME, Eccles MP, Wensing M. Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007;85:93-138.
29. Davis R, Campbell R, Hildon Z, Hobbs L, Michie S. Theories of behaviour and behavior change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9:323-44.
30. Tinkle M, Kimball R, Haozous EA, Shuster G, Meize-Grochowski R. Dissemination and implementation research funded by the US National Institutes of Health, 2015-2012. Nurs Res Pract. 2013;2013:909606.
31. Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci. 2010;5:14.
32. Colquhoun HL, Letts LJ, Law MC, MacDermid JC, Missiuna CA. A scoping review of the use of theory in studies of knowledge translation. Can J Occup Ther. 2010;77:270-9.
33. Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE. A systematic review of strategies for implementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Res Soc Work Pract. 2014;24(2):192-212.
34. Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2016;11:72.
35. Birken SA, Powell BJ, Presseau J, Kirk MA, Lorencatto F, Gould NJ, et al. Combined use of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) and the theoretical domains framework (TDF): a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12:2.