Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks.
Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-21
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Nilsen P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nilsen P
执行科学已朝着更多地使用理论方法的方向发展，以便更好地理解和解释执行如何以及为什么成功或失败。本文的目的是提出一种分类法，区分执行科学中不同类别的理论、模型和框架，以促进在执行研究和实践中适当选择和应用相关方法，并促进执行研究人员之间的跨学科对话。执行科学使用的理论方法有三个首要目标：描述和/或指导将研究转化为实践的过程(过程模型)；理解和/或解释影响执行结果的因素(决定因素框架、经典理论、执行理论)；以及评估执行情况(评价框架)。本文提出了实现三大目标的五类理论方法。在文献中，这些类别并不总是被认为是单独类型的方法。虽然一些理论、模型和框架之间存在重叠，但认识到差异对于促进选择相关方法很重要。大多数决定因素框架为执行执行工作提供有限的“如何操作”支持，因为决定因素通常过于笼统，不能提供足够的细节来指导执行过程。虽然在许多进程模型中提到了解决将研究转化为实践的障碍和推动因素的相关性，但这些模型没有确定或系统地构建与实施成功相关的具体决定因素。此外，流程模型识别实现工作的时间序列，而决定性框架并不明确地从流程的角度看待实现。
Implementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers. Theoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks). This article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited “how-to” support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
发表时间：
2009-08-07
期刊：
Implementation science : IS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Damschroder LJ;Aron DC;Keith RE;Kirsh SR;Alexander JA;Lowery JC
通讯作者：
Lowery JC
影响因子：
10.8
作者：
Cacioppo, JT
通讯作者：
Cacioppo, JT
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Broyles LM;Rodriguez KL;Kraemer KL;Sevick MA;Price PA;Gordon AJ
通讯作者：
Gordon AJ
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Aubert, BA;Hamel, G
通讯作者：
Hamel, G
DOI：
10.1186/1748-5908-7-37
发表时间：
2012-04-24
期刊：
Implementation science : IS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Cane J;O'Connor D;Michie S
通讯作者：
Michie S