Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30118
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKlaic, Marlena-
dc.contributor.authorKapp, Suzanne-
dc.contributor.authorHudson, Peter-
dc.contributor.authorChapman, Wendy-
dc.contributor.authorDenehy, Linda-
dc.contributor.authorStory, David A-
dc.contributor.authorFrancis, Jill J-
dc.date2022-
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-23T00:23:07Z-
dc.date.available2022-06-23T00:23:07Z-
dc.date.issued2022-01-27-
dc.identifier.citationImplementation Science 2022; 17(1): 10en
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30118-
dc.description.abstractImplementation research may play an important role in reducing research waste by identifying strategies that support translation of evidence into practice. Implementation of healthcare interventions is influenced by multiple factors including the organisational context, implementation strategies and features of the intervention as perceived by people delivering and receiving the intervention. Recently, concepts relating to perceived features of interventions have been gaining traction in published literature, namely, acceptability, fidelity, feasibility, scalability and sustainability. These concepts may influence uptake of healthcare interventions, yet there seems to be little consensus about their nature and impact. The aim of this paper is to develop a testable conceptual framework of implementability of healthcare interventions that includes these five concepts. A multifaceted approach was used to develop and refine a conceptual framework of implementability of healthcare interventions. An overview of reviews identified reviews published between January 2000 and March 2021 that focused on at least one of the five concepts in relation to a healthcare intervention. These findings informed the development of a preliminary framework of implementability of healthcare interventions which was presented to a panel of experts. A nominal group process was used to critique, refine and agree on a final framework. A total of 252 publications were included in the overview of reviews. Of these, 32% were found to be feasible, 4% reported sustainable changes in practice and 9% were scaled up to other populations and/or settings. The expert panel proposed that scalability and sustainability of a healthcare intervention are dependent on its acceptability, fidelity and feasibility. Furthermore, acceptability, fidelity and feasibility require re-evaluation over time and as the intervention is developed and then implemented in different settings or with different populations. The final agreed framework of implementability provides the basis for a chronological, iterative approach to planning for wide-scale, long-term implementation of healthcare interventions. We recommend that researchers consider the factors acceptability, fidelity and feasibility (proposed to influence sustainability and scalability) during the preliminary phases of intervention development, evaluation and implementation, and iteratively check these factors in different settings and over time.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectFrameworken
dc.subjectHealthcare interventionsen
dc.subjectImplementabilityen
dc.subjectImplementation researchen
dc.subjectImplementation scienceen
dc.subjectImplementation strategiesen
dc.subjectScalabilityen
dc.subjectSustainabilityen
dc.titleImplementability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a conceptual framework.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleImplementation Science : ISen
dc.identifier.affiliationAnaesthesiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Allied Health, Peter McCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Critical Care, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, Canada.. Department of Health Services Research, Peter McCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe Royal Melbourne Hospital, Allied Health Department, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationCentre for Digital Transformation of Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe University of Melbourne, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationCentre for Palliative Care, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationEnd-of-life Care Research Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgiumen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe University of Melbourne, School of Health Sciences, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35086538/en
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13012-021-01171-7en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2328-0503en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5438-8384en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-5891-8197en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-8702-4483en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-2926-8436en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-6479-1310en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-5784-8895en
dc.identifier.pubmedid35086538-
local.name.researcherStory, David A
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.author.deptAnaesthesia-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

42
checked on Nov 22, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.