Browsing by Author "Anderson, Ruth A."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Conceptual and relational advances of the PARIHS and i-PARIHS frameworks over the last decade: a critical interpretive synthesis
    (2022-12-07) Duan, Yinfei; Iaconi, Alba; Wang, Jing; Perez, Janelle S.; Song, Yuting; Chamberlain, Stephanie A.; Shrestha, Shovana; Choroschun, Katharina; Hoben, Matthias; Beeber, Anna; Anderson, Ruth A.; Cummings, Greta G.; Lanham, Holly J.; Norton, Peter G.; Estabrooks, Carole A.; Berta, Whitney
    Abstract Background The number of research publications reporting the use of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework and the integrated PARIHS (i-PARIHS) framework has grown steadily. We asked how the last decade of implementation research, predicated on the (i-)PARIHS framework (referring to the PARIHS or i-PARIHS framework), has contributed to our understanding of the conceptualizations of, relationships between, and dynamics among the core framework elements/sub-elements. Building on the Helfrich et al. (2010) review of research on the PARIHS framework, we undertook a critical interpretive synthesis to: (1) identify conceptual and relational advances in the (i-)PARIHS framework and (2) identify conceptual and relational aspects of the (i-)PARIHS framework that warrant further work. Methods We performed a systematic search in PubMed/PubMed Central, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, JSTOR, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PsycInfo. Articles were eligible for synthesis if they (a) were peer-reviewed articles, written in English, and published between January 2009 and December 2021, (b) applied the (i-)PARIHS framework explicitly to guide implementation research, and (c) made conceptual (expanding the conceptualization of core elements) and/or relational contributions (elaborating relationships among elements/sub-elements, or theorizing the relationships using empirical data). We used a critical interpretive synthesis approach to synthesize conceptual-relational advances of the (i-)PARIHS framework. Results Thirty-seven articles were eligible for synthesis. Twenty-four offered conceptual contributions, and 18 offered relational contributions (5 articles contributed in both ways). We found conceptual expansion of all core (i-)PARIHS elements, with most emphasis on context (particularly outer context and leadership), facilitation, and implementation success. Articles also gave insights into the complex relationships and relational dynamism among these elements, characterized as contingent, interactive, multilevel, and temporal effects. Conclusions We observed developmental advances of the (i-)PARIHS framework and proposed several directions to further advance the framework. Conceptualization of (i-)PARIHS elements (particularly evidence/innovation and recipients) need to be further developed by specifying conceptual and operational definitions of underlying sub-elements. Relationships among (i-)PARIHS elements/sub-elements need to be further elaborated through empirical studies that consider situational contingencies and causal complexities. This will require examining necessity and sufficiency of (i-)PARIHS elements/sub-elements in relation to implementation outcomes, interactions among elements, and mechanism-based explanations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Fidelity is not easy! Challenges and guidelines for assessing fidelity in complex interventions
    (2021-05-29) Ginsburg, Liane R.; Hoben, Matthias; Easterbrook, Adam; Anderson, Ruth A.; Estabrooks, Carole A.; Norton, Peter G.
    Abstract Background Fidelity in complex behavioural interventions is underexplored and few comprehensive or detailed fidelity studies report on specific procedures for monitoring fidelity. Using Bellg’s popular Treatment Fidelity model, this paper aims to increase understanding of how to practically and comprehensively assess fidelity in complex, group-level, interventions. Approach and lessons learned Drawing on our experience using a mixed methods approach to assess fidelity in the INFORM study (Improving Nursing home care through Feedback On perfoRMance data—INFORM), we report on challenges and adaptations experienced with our fidelity assessment approach and lessons learned. Six fidelity assessment challenges were identified: (1) the need to develop succinct tools to measure fidelity given tools tend to be intervention specific, (2) determining which components of fidelity (delivery, receipt, enactment) to emphasize, (3) unit of analysis considerations in group-level interventions, (4) missing data problems, (5) how to respond to and treat fidelity ‘failures’ and ‘deviations’ and lack of an overall fidelity assessment scheme, and (6) ensuring fidelity assessment doesn’t threaten internal validity. Recommendations and conclusions Six guidelines, primarily applicable to group-level studies of complex interventions, are described to help address conceptual, methodological, and practical challenges with fidelity assessment in pragmatic trials. The current study offers guidance to researchers regarding key practical, methodological, and conceptual challenges associated with assessing fidelity in pragmatic trials. Greater attention to fidelity assessment and publication of fidelity results through detailed studies such as this one is critical for improving the quality of fidelity studies and, ultimately, the utility of published trials. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02695836. Registered on February 24, 2016
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    How context links to best practice use in long-term care homes: a mixed methods study
    (2024-06-07) Duan, Yinfei; Wang, Jing; Lanham, Holly J.; Berta, Whitney; Chamberlain, Stephanie A.; Hoben, Matthias; Choroschun, Katharina; Iaconi, Alba; Song, Yuting; Perez, Janelle S.; Shrestha, Shovana; Beeber, Anna; Anderson, Ruth A.; Hayduk, Leslie; Cummings, Greta G.; Norton, Peter G.; Estabrooks, Carole A.
    Abstract Background Context (work environment) plays a crucial role in implementing evidence-based best practices within health care settings. Context is multi-faceted and its complex relationship with best practice use by care aides in long-term care (LTC) homes are understudied. This study used an innovative approach to investigate how context elements interrelate and influence best practice use by LTC care aides. Methods In this secondary analysis study, we combined coincidence analysis (a configurational comparative method) and qualitative analysis to examine data collected through the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program. Coincidence analysis of clinical microsystem (care unit)-level data aggregated from a survey of 1,506 care aides across 36 Canadian LTC homes identified configurations (paths) of context elements linked consistently to care aides’ best practices use, measured with a scale of conceptual research use (CRU). Qualitative analysis of ethnographic case study data from 3 LTC homes (co-occurring with the survey) further informed interpretation of the configurations. Results Three paths led to very high CRU at the care unit level: very high leadership; frequent use of educational materials; or a combination of very high social capital (teamwork) and frequent communication between care aides and clinical educators or specialists. Conversely, 2 paths led to very low CRU, consisting of 3 context elements related to unfavorable conditions in relationships, resources, and formal learning opportunities. Our qualitative analysis provided insights into how specific context elements served as facilitators or barriers for best practices. This qualitative exploration was especially helpful in understanding 2 of the paths, illustrating the pivotal role of leadership and the function of teamwork in mitigating the negative impact of time constraints. Conclusions Our study deepens understanding of the complex interrelationships between context elements and their impact on the implementation of best practices in LTC homes. The findings underscore that there is no singular, universal bundle of context-related elements that enhance or hinder best practice use in LTC homes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Reporting unit context data to stakeholders in long-term care: a practical approach
    (2022-11-21) Cranley, Lisa A.; Lo, T K. T.; Weeks, Lori E.; Hoben, Matthias; Ginsburg, Liane R.; Doupe, Malcolm; Anderson, Ruth A.; Wagg, Adrian; Boström, Anne-Marie; Estabrooks, Carole A.; Norton, Peter G.
    Abstract Background The importance of reporting research evidence to stakeholders in ways that balance complexity and usability is well-documented. However, guidance for how to accomplish this is less clear. We describe a method of developing and visualising dimension-specific scores for organisational context (context rank method). We explore perspectives of leaders in long-term care nursing homes (NHs) on two methods for reporting organisational context data: context rank method and our traditionally presented binary method—more/less favourable context. Methods We used a multimethod design. First, we used survey data from 4065 healthcare aides on 290 care units from 91 NHs to calculate quartiles for each of the 10 Alberta Context Tool (ACT) dimension scores, aggregated at the care unit level based on the overall sample distribution of these scores. This ordinal variable was then summed across ACT scores. Context rank scores were assessed for associations with outcomes for NH staff and for quality of care (healthcare aides’ instrumental and conceptual research use, job satisfaction, rushed care, care left undone) using regression analyses. Second, we used a qualitative descriptive approach to elicit NH leaders’ perspectives on whether the methods were understandable, meaningful, relevant, and useful. With 16 leaders, we conducted focus groups between December 2017 and June 2018: one in Nova Scotia, one in Prince Edward Island, and one in Ontario, Canada. Data were analysed using content analysis. Results Composite scores generated using the context rank method had positive associations with healthcare aides’ instrumental research use (p < .0067) and conceptual research use and job satisfaction (p < .0001). Associations were negative between context rank summary scores and rushed care and care left undone (p < .0001). Overall, leaders indicated that data presented by both methods had value. They liked the binary method as a starting point but appreciated the greater level of detail in the context rank method. Conclusions We recommend careful selection of either the binary or context rank method based on purpose and audience. If a simple, high-level overview is the goal, the binary method has value. If improvement is the goal, the context rank method will give leaders more actionable details.