| Title |
Defining the external implementation context: an integrative systematic literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-018-3046-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dennis P. Watson, Erin L. Adams, Sarah Shue, Heather Coates, Alan McGuire, Jeremy Chesher, Joanna Jackson, Ogbonnaya I. Omenka |
| Abstract |
Proper implementation of evidence-based interventions is necessary for their full impact to be realized. However, the majority of research to date has overlooked facilitators and barriers existing outside the boundaries of the implementing organization(s). Better understanding and measurement of the external implementation context would be particularly beneficial in light of complex health interventions that extend into and interact with the larger environment they are embedded within. We conducted a integrative systematic literature review to identify external context constructs likely to impact implementation of complex evidence-based interventions. The review process was iterative due to our goal to inductively develop the identified constructs. Data collection occurred in four primary stages: (1) an initial set of key literature across disciplines was identified and used to inform (2) journal and (3) author searches that, in turn, informed the design of the final (4) database search. Additionally, (5) we conducted citation searches of relevant literature reviews identified in each stage. We carried out an inductive thematic content analysis with the goal of developing homogenous, well-defined, and mutually exclusive categories. We identified eight external context constructs: (1) professional influences, (2) political support, (3) social climate, (4) local infrastructure, (5) policy and legal climate, (6) relational climate, (7) target population, and (8) funding and economic climate. This is the first study to our knowledge to use a systematic review process to identify empirically observed external context factors documented to impact implementation. Comparison with four widely-utilized implementation frameworks supports the exhaustiveness of our review process. Future work should focus on the development of more stringent operationalization and measurement of these external constructs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 13% |
| Colombia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 131 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 14% |
| Researcher | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 17% |
| Unknown | 40 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 22 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 12% |
| Psychology | 8 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 48 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,916,272
of 24,144,324 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,276
of 8,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,110
of 333,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#50
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,144,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.