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

      Developing a conceptual framework for implementation science to evaluate a nutrition intervention scaled-up in a real-world setting

      review-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

          Objective:

          The aim of this paper is to identify and develop a comprehensive conceptual framework using implementation science that can be applied to assess a nutrition intervention in a real-world setting.

          Design:

          We conducted a narrative review using electronic databases and a manual search to identify implementation science frameworks, models and theories published in peer-reviewed journals. We performed a qualitative thematic analysis of these publications to generate a framework that could be applied to nutrition implementation science.

          Results:

          Based on this review, we developed a comprehensive framework which we have conceptualised as an implementation science process that describes the transition from the use of scientific evidence through to scaling-up with the aim of making an intervention sustainable. The framework consisted of three domains: Domain i – efficacy to effectiveness trials, Domain ii – scaling-up and Domain iii – sustainability. These three domains encompass five components: identifying an ‘effective’ intervention; scaling-up and implementation fidelity; course corrections during implementation; promoting sustainability of interventions and consideration of a comprehensive methodological paradigm to identify ‘effective’ interventions and to assess the process and outcome indicators of implementation. The framework was successfully applied to a nutrition implementation program in Bangladesh.

          Conclusions:

          Our conceptual framework built from an implantation science perspective offers a comprehensive approach supported by a foundational and holistic understanding of its key components. This framework provides guidance for implementation researchers, policy-makers and programme managers to identify and review an effective intervention, to scale it up and to sustain it over time.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

          Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance

            Evaluating complex interventions is complicated. The Medical Research Council's evaluation framework (2000) brought welcome clarity to the task. Now the council has updated its guidance
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.

              This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. "Quality" as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Public Health Nutr
                Public Health Nutr
                PHN
                Public Health Nutrition
                Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK )
                1368-9800
                1475-2727
                April 2021
                27 February 2020
                : 24
                : Suppl 1 , Nutrition Implementation Science: The Experiences of a Large-Scale Home Fortification in Bangladesh
                : s7-s22
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research School of Population Health, Colleague of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University , Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
                [2 ]Nutrition and Clinical Services Division, icddr,b , Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
                [3 ]School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle , Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
                [4 ]Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health , Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes
                [* ] Corresponding author: Email haribondhu.sarma@ 123456anu.edu.au
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1553-8498
                Article
                S1368980019004415
                10.1017/S1368980019004415
                8045137
                32102713
                4ba33153-531d-48dc-9d31-7104cb7f1074
                © The Authors 2020

                This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 01 April 2019
                : 06 September 2019
                : 15 October 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, References: 77, Pages: 16
                Categories
                Review Article
                Assessment and Methodology

                Public health
                implementation science,nutrition implementation science,conceptual framework,implementation of intervention

                Comments

                Comment on this article