6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ciencias de la implementación: de la evidencia a la práctica Translated title: Implementation science: from evidence to practice

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Resumen La amplia gama de evidencias científicas que respaldan diversas intervenciones clínicas no son suficientes para que dichas intervenciones se utilicen en la práctica. De tal modo que la Medicina Basada en la Evidencia debe dar el paso hacia la Practica Basada en la Evidencia, a través de procesos de implementación que permitan desplegar y contextualizar intervenciones en salud respaldadas por la evidencia. Para tal fin se ha desarrollado la Ciencia de la implementación, la cual investiga los factores que influencian el uso efectivo y completo de las innovaciones científicas en la práctica, intentando maximizar los beneficios de las intervenciones en salud. Esta ciencia se define como el estudio de los métodos que promueven la incorporación sistemática de hallazgos de investigación en la rutina clínica, con el objetivo de mejorar la calidad y efectividad de los servicios e intervenciones en salud. El propósito de este artículo es introducir el concepto de Ciencia de la Implementación en relación con la epidemiología clínica y establecer las razones por las cuales existe una imperiosa necesidad de su desarrollo. Además, tiene el propósito de explicar el porqué de la necesidad de acelerar la aplicación efectiva de la Medicina Basada en Evidencia y definir los principales modelos que precisan el ámbito de trabajo de esta ciencia, incluyendo: las particularidades de los estudios de implementación, sus diferencias con los estudios clásicos de la epidemiología clínica, los modelos de implementación y evaluación, así como la definición de los desenlaces esperados en un estudio de implementación. (Acta Med Colomb 2018; 43: 207-216).

          Translated abstract

          Abstract The wide range of scientific evidence supporting various clinical interventions is not sufficient for these interventions to be used in practice. For this reason, Evidence-Based Medicine must take the step towards Evidence-Based Practice, through implementation processes that allow deploying and contextualizing the health interventions supported by evidence. For this purpose, the Science of implementation has been developed, which investigates the factors that influence the effective and complete use of scientific innovations in practice, trying to maximize the benefits of health interventions. This science is defined as the study of methods that promote the systematic incorporation of research findings in the clinical routine, with the aim of improving the quality and effectiveness of health services and interventions. The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of Implementation Science in relation to clinical epidemiology and establish the reasons by which there is an urgent need for its development. In addition, it has the purpose of explaining why the need to accelerate the effective application of Evidence-Based Medicine and define the main models that define the scope of work of this science, including: the particularities of implementation studies, their differences with the classic studies of clinical epidemiology, the implementation and evaluation models, as well as the definition of expected outcomes in an implementation study. (Acta Med Colomb 2018; 43: 207-216).

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

          An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework

            Background The effectiveness of complex interventions, as well as their success in reaching relevant populations, is critically influenced by their implementation in a given context. Current conceptual frameworks often fail to address context and implementation in an integrated way and, where addressed, they tend to focus on organisational context and are mostly concerned with specific health fields. Our objective was to develop a framework to facilitate the structured and comprehensive conceptualisation and assessment of context and implementation of complex interventions. Methods The Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework was developed in an iterative manner and underwent extensive application. An initial framework based on a scoping review was tested in rapid assessments, revealing inconsistencies with respect to the underlying concepts. Thus, pragmatic utility concept analysis was undertaken to advance the concepts of context and implementation. Based on these findings, the framework was revised and applied in several systematic reviews, one health technology assessment (HTA) and one applicability assessment of very different complex interventions. Lessons learnt from these applications and from peer review were incorporated, resulting in the CICI framework. Results The CICI framework comprises three dimensions—context, implementation and setting—which interact with one another and with the intervention dimension. Context comprises seven domains (i.e., geographical, epidemiological, socio-cultural, socio-economic, ethical, legal, political); implementation consists of five domains (i.e., implementation theory, process, strategies, agents and outcomes); setting refers to the specific physical location, in which the intervention is put into practise. The intervention and the way it is implemented in a given setting and context can occur on a micro, meso and macro level. Tools to operationalise the framework comprise a checklist, data extraction tools for qualitative and quantitative reviews and a consultation guide for applicability assessments. Conclusions The CICI framework addresses and graphically presents context, implementation and setting in an integrated way. It aims at simplifying and structuring complexity in order to advance our understanding of whether and how interventions work. The framework can be applied in systematic reviews and HTA as well as primary research and facilitate communication among teams of researchers and with various stakeholders. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0552-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Observational and interventional study design types; an overview

              The appropriate choice in study design is essential for the successful execution of biomedical and public health research. There are many study designs to choose from within two broad categories of observational and interventional studies. Each design has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the need to understand these limitations is necessary to arrive at correct study conclusions. Observational study designs, also called epidemiologic study designs, are often retrospective and are used to assess potential causation in exposure-outcome relationships and therefore influence preventive methods. Observational study designs include ecological designs, cross sectional, case-control, case-crossover, retrospective and prospective cohorts. An important subset of observational studies is diagnostic study designs, which evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic procedures and tests as compared to other diagnostic measures. These include diagnostic accuracy designs, diagnostic cohort designs, and diagnostic randomized controlled trials. Interventional studies are often prospective and are specifically tailored to evaluate direct impacts of treatment or preventive measures on disease. Each study design has specific outcome measures that rely on the type and quality of data utilized. Additionally, each study design has potential limitations that are more severe and need to be addressed in the design phase of the study. This manuscript is meant to provide an overview of study design types, strengths and weaknesses of common observational and interventional study designs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                amc
                Acta Medica Colombiana
                Acta Med Colomb
                Asociacion Colombiana de Medicina Interna (Bogotá, Distrito Capital, Colombia )
                0120-2448
                December 2018
                : 43
                : 4
                : 207-216
                Affiliations
                [1] Bogotá D.C. orgnameHospital Universitario San Ignacio orgdiv1Pontificia Universidad Javeriana orgdiv2Facultad de Medicina Colombia
                [3] Bogotá Bogotá orgnamePontificia Universidad Javeriana orgdiv1Facultad de Medicina orgdiv2Departamento de Epidemiología y Bioestadística Colombia
                [2] Bogotá D.C. orgnameHospital Universitario San Ignacio orgdiv1Pontificia Universidad Javeriana orgdiv2Facultad de Medicina Colombia
                Article
                S0120-24482018000400207
                29eacac0-d2ba-4143-a522-2889b6fe6827

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 29 June 2017
                : 08 November 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 79, Pages: 10
                Product

                SciELO Colombia

                Categories
                Educación y práctica de la medicina

                evidence-based medicine,implementation science,práctica basada en la evidencia,medicina basada en la evidencia,ciencias de la implementación,evidence-based practice

                Comments

                Comment on this article