Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures

By Stephenie R. Chaudoir, A. Dugan, Colin Barr. Implementation Science, 2013

766 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundTwo of the current methodological barriers to implementation science efforts are the lack of agreement regarding constructs hypothesized to affect implementation success and identifiable measures of these constructs. In order to address these gaps, the main goals of this paper were to identify a multi-level framework that captures the predominant factors that impact implementation outcomes, conduct a systematic review of available measures assessing constructs subsumed within these primary factors, and determine the criterion validity of these measures in the search articles.MethodWe conducted a systematic literature review to identify articles reporting the use or development of measures designed to assess constructs that predict the implementation of evidence-based health innovations. Articles published through 12 August 2012 were identified through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the journal Implementation Science. We then utilized a modified five-factor framework in order to code whether each measure contained items that assess constructs representing structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level factors. Further, we coded the criterion validity of each measure within the search articles obtained.ResultsOur review identified 62 measures. Results indicate that organization, provider, and innovation-level constructs have the greatest number of measures available for use, whereas structural and patient-level constructs have the least. Additionally, relatively few measures demonstrated criterion validity, or reliable association with an implementation outcome (e.g., fidelity).DiscussionIn light of these findings, our discussion centers on strategies that researchers can utilize in order to identify, adapt, and improve extant measures for use in their own implementation research. In total, our literature review and resulting measures compendium increases the capacity of researchers to conceptualize and measure implementation-related constructs in their ongoing and future research.

Subfields: General Health Professions

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9193bae8cbdc5da77d5f18b44dced4be2b9f818a

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

Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework (2017, background): “The success of implementation is highly dependent on the buy-in of individuals who become key stakeholders in both the intervention and the implementation effort [89].”
An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist (2015, background): “Explicit operationalization of theoretical constructs can also guide development of robust quantitative measures [50, 51].”
Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks (2015, background): “and organizational learning are relevant for understanding and explaining organizational influences on implementation processes [21,53,57,94-101].”
Artificial Intelligence and the Implementation Challenge (2019, background): “The value proposition of digital technology might be different for different stakeholder groups, and implementation frameworks direct attention to the implications of newly introduced technologies for patients, health care providers, managers, health policymakers, and others [8,25,26].”
Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies (2017, background): “It identified some new literature on organizational-level routinization [4], but little new evidence on scale-up, spread, or sustainability—a finding that has been confirmed by other reviews since [5-9].”