Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges

By A. Kitson, J. Rycroft-Malone, G. Harvey, B. McCormack, K. Seers, A. Titchen. Implementation science : IS, 2008

1,276 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundThe 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.DiscussionThis 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.SummaryThe 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.

Subfields: General Health Professions

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/82abf3d38e3c3f0541e207bcd0ef5b8f909995ad

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

Citations in the corpus

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science (2009, background): “[and] need not specify the direction of relationships or identify critical hypotheses' [12].”
PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice (2015, background): “Included in this mix are theories related to complexity [72, 73], absorptive capacity [74] and learning organisations [75] as well as theories related to leadership and organisational culture [76]. Other theories relate to how innovation and change can be sustained in a system. Again, there are a nu”
Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks (2015, neutral): “in implementation science [9,14,39].”
A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (2015, methodology): “earlier by developers of the PARIHS framework [27].”
An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist (2015, neutral): “Health Services Research Information Central, US National Institutes of Health. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hsrinfo/implementation_science.html.”
Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework (2017, methodology): “ordinate role; where it is considered explicitly, it is usually restricted to an organisational context [27, 44, 91].”
When complexity science meets implementation science: a theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change (2018, background): “Research Implementation in Health Services formula [36] sees successful implementation as a function of the”