Measuring readiness for implementation: A systematic review of measures' psychometric and pragmatic properties.
Measuring readiness for implementation: A systematic review of measures' psychometric and pragmatic properties.
复制标题
衡量实施准备就绪：对措施的心理测量和务实特性的系统评价。
DOI：
10.1177/2633489520933896
复制
发表时间：
2020-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lewis, Cara C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Weiner, Bryan J.;Mettert, Kayne D.;Dorsey, Caitlin N.;Nolen, Elspeth A.;Stanick, Cameo;Powell, Byron J.;Lewis, Cara C.
系统的措施审查可以通过找到可靠、有效、务实的措施来促进实施研究和实践的进展；确定需要改进和测试的有希望的措施；并强调测量差距。本次审查确定并评估了实施准备措施及其子结构的心理测量和务实特性，如实施研究综合框架中所述：领导参与、可用资源以及知识和信息的获取。系统评价方法在其他地方有详细描述。此次审查的重点是心理或行为健康方面使用的措施，分三个阶段进行。第一阶段，数据收集，涉及搜索字符串生成、标题和摘要筛选、全文审查、结构分配和引用引文搜索。第二阶段，数据提取，涉及编码相关的心理测量和实用信息。第三阶段，数据分析，由两名训练有素的专家使用心理测量和实用证据评级量表（PAPERS）独立评估每项措施。频率和集中趋势总结了信息可用性和论文评级。搜索确定了 9 项实施准备措施、24 项领导参与措施、17 项可用资源措施以及 6 项知识和信息获取措施。大多数措施都可以获得有关内部一致性的信息。有关其他心理测量特性的信息通常无法获得。内部一致性评级为“足够”或“良好”。其他心理测量属性的评级低于“足够”。关于实用属性的信息最常见的是关于成本、语言可读性和简洁性。关于培训负担和解释负担的信息较少。成本和语言可读性通常表现出“良好”或“优秀”评级，解释负担通常表现出“最低”评级，而培训负担和简洁性则在不同衡量标准中表现出混合评级。用于心理健康和行为保健的实施准备措施及其子结构分布不均，表现出未知或较低的心理测量质量，并表现出混合的实用特性。这次审查确定了一些有希望的措施，但需要有针对性的努力来系统地开发和测试对研究和实践都有用的措施。在服务提供环境中成功实施有效的心理健康或行为健康治疗部分取决于服务提供者和管理人员是否准备好实施治疗；组织领导者参与实施工作；可用于支持实施的资源，例如时间、金钱、空间和培训；以及服务提供者获取有关治疗及其作用原理的知识和信息的可及性。重要的是，测量这些因素的方法可靠、准确且实用；否则，我们就无法自信地评估他们的存在或实力，也无法知道增强其存在或实力的努力是否有效。对已发表研究的系统回顾旨在确定和评估问卷（称为衡量标准）的质量，以评估实施准备情况、领导参与、可用资源以及知识和信息的获取情况。我们确定了这些因素的 56 项衡量标准，并根据其可靠性、准确性和实用性对它们的质量进行了评级。我们的研究结果表明，要提高现有措施的质量，还有很多工作要做；我们为此提供了一些建议。
Systematic measure reviews can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable, valid, pragmatic measures; identifying promising measures needing refinement and testing; and highlighting measurement gaps. This review identifies and evaluates the psychometric and pragmatic properties of measures of readiness for implementation and its sub-constructs as delineated in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: leadership engagement, available resources, and access to knowledge and information. The systematic review methodology is described fully elsewhere. The review, which focused on measures used in mental or behavioral health, proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and cited citation searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding relevant psychometric and pragmatic information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales (PAPERS). Frequencies and central tendencies summarized information availability and PAPERS ratings. Searches identified 9 measures of readiness for implementation, 24 measures of leadership engagement, 17 measures of available resources, and 6 measures of access to knowledge and information. Information about internal consistency was available for most measures. Information about other psychometric properties was often not available. Ratings for internal consistency were “adequate” or “good.” Ratings for other psychometric properties were less than “adequate.” Information on pragmatic properties was most often available regarding cost, language readability, and brevity. Information was less often available regarding training burden and interpretation burden. Cost and language readability generally exhibited “good” or “excellent” ratings, interpretation burden generally exhibiting “minimal” ratings, and training burden and brevity exhibiting mixed ratings across measures. Measures of readiness for implementation and its sub-constructs used in mental health and behavioral health care are unevenly distributed, exhibit unknown or low psychometric quality, and demonstrate mixed pragmatic properties. This review identified a few promising measures, but targeted efforts are needed to systematically develop and test measures that are useful for both research and practice. Successful implementation of effective mental health or behavioral health treatments in service delivery settings depends in part on the readiness of the service providers and administrators to implement the treatment; the engagement of organizational leaders in the implementation effort; the resources available to support implementation, such as time, money, space, and training; and the accessibility of knowledge and information among service providers about the treatment and how it works. It is important that the methods for measuring these factors are dependable, accurate, and practical; otherwise, we cannot assess their presence or strength with confidence or know whether efforts to increase their presence or strength have worked. This systematic review of published studies sought to identify and evaluate the quality of questionnaires (referred to as measures) that assess readiness for implementation, leadership engagement, available resources, and access to knowledge and information. We identified 56 measures of these factors and rated their quality in terms of how dependable, accurate, and practical they are. Our findings indicate there is much work to be done to improve the quality of available measures; we offer several recommendations for doing so.
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
DOI：
10.1007/s10488-013-0515-3
发表时间：
2014-11
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Guerrero, Erick G.;He, Amy;Kim, Ahraemi;Aarons, Gregory A.
通讯作者：
Aarons, Gregory A.
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Gagnon MP;Attieh R;Ghandour el K;Légaré F;Ouimet M;Estabrooks CA;Grimshaw J
通讯作者：
Grimshaw J
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Glasgow, Russell E.
通讯作者：
Glasgow, Russell E.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Diakopoulos, Nicholas
通讯作者：
Diakopoulos, Nicholas