Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes.

Background: The relevance of context in implementation science is reflected in the numerous theories, frameworks, models and taxonomies that have been proposed to analyse determinants of implementation (in this paper referred to as determinant frameworks). This scoping review aimed to investigate an...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC Health Services Research Vol. 19; no. 1
Main Authors: Nilsen, Per, Bernhardsson, Susanne
Format: research Journal Article
Published: BioMed Central 3/25/2019
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=135533902&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 135533902
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        14726963
        1CHS
      jtl: BMC Health Services Research
      issn: 14726963
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 3/25/2019
      vid: 19
      iid: 1
      pid: 24147
      pub: BioMed Central
    artinfo:
      ui:
        135533902
        135533902
        NLM30909897
        135533902
        10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3
        NLM30909897
        135533902
      ppct: 1
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes.
      aug:
        au:
          Nilsen, Per
          Bernhardsson, Susanne
        affil: Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Community Medicine, Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden
      sug:
        subj:
          Professional Practice, Evidence-Based Administration
          Leadership
          Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales
          Social Readjustment Rating Scale
      ab: Background: The relevance of context in implementation science is reflected in the numerous theories, frameworks, models and taxonomies that have been proposed to analyse determinants of implementation (in this paper referred to as determinant frameworks). This scoping review aimed to investigate and map how determinant frameworks used in implementation science were developed, what terms are used for contextual determinants for implementation, how the context is conceptualized, and which context dimensions that can be discerned.Methods: A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to October 2017, and supplemented with implementation science text books and known published overviews. Publications in English that described a determinant framework (theory, model, taxonomy or checklist), of which context was one determinant, were eligible. Screening and inclusion were done in duplicate. Extracted data were analysed to address the study aims. A qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach was carried out concerning the development and core context dimensions of the frameworks. The review is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.Results: The database searches yielded a total of 1113 publications, of which 67 were considered potentially relevant based on the predetermined eligibility criteria, and retrieved in full text. Seventeen unique determinant frameworks were identified and included. Most were developed based on the literature and/or the developers' implementation experiences. Six of the frameworks explicitly referred to "context", but only four frameworks provided a specific definition of the concept. Instead, context was defined indirectly by description of various categories and sub-categories that together made up the context. Twelve context dimensions were identified, pertaining to different aggregation levels. The most widely addressed context dimensions were organizational support, financial resources, social relations and support, and leadership.Conclusions: The findings suggest variation with regard to how the frameworks were developed and considerable inconsistency in terms used for contextual determinants, how context is conceptualized, and which contextual determinants are accounted for in frameworks used in implementation science. Common context dimensions were identified, which can facilitate research that incorporates a theory of context, i.e. assumptions about how different dimensions may influence each other and affect implementation outcomes. A thoughtful application of the concept and a more consistent terminology would enhance transparency, simplify communication among researchers, and facilitate comparison across studies.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N