Classification schemes for knowledge translation interventions: a practical resource for researchers.
Classification schemes for knowledge translation interventions: a practical resource for researchers.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12874-017-0441-2
复制
发表时间：
2017-12-06
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Hartling L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Slaughter SE;Zimmermann GL;Nuspl M;Hanson HM;Albrecht L;Esmail R;Sauro K;Newton AS;Donald M;Dyson MP;Thomson D;Hartling L
随着实施科学的进步，促进将证据转化为医疗保健、卫生系统或卫生政策的干预措施的数量正在增加。因此，这些知识翻译（KT）干预措施的分类方案已经出现。最近的一项范围审查确定了KT干预的51种分类方案，以将证据纳入医疗实践;然而，该审查没有评估分类方案的质量，也没有提供详细信息以帮助研究人员根据其背景和目的选择方案。本研究的目的是进一步检查和评估这些KT干预措施的分类方案的质量，并提供信息，以帮助研究人员在选择分类方案时。我们从最初的51篇分类方案文章中提取了以下信息：作者的目标;方案的目的和应用领域;社会生态学水平（个人，组织，社区，系统）;适应性（广泛与特定）;目标群体（患者，提供者，政策制定者），意图（政策，教育，实践）和目的（传播与实施）。两名审查员独立评价了每个分类方案的发展的方法学质量，使用的是AGREE II工具的改编版本。基于这些评估，两位独立的评审员就是否推荐每个方案供研究人员使用达成了共识。在51个原始分类方案中，我们排除了7个不是具体分类方案、无法访问或重复的分类方案。在其余44个分类方案中，有9个不被推荐。在建议的35个分类方案中，10个侧重于行为改变，6个侧重于人口健康。许多计划（n = 29）解决了实践的考虑。针对教育或政策目标的计划较少。25个分类办法具有广泛适用性，6个分类办法具有具体适用性，4个分类办法具有两者的要素。23项计划针对保健提供者，9项针对病人和提供者，1项针对决策者。大多数分类办法是为了执行而不是传播。KT干预措施的35个分类方案的开发和报告具有足够的严谨性，建议使用的研究人员在KT在医疗保健。我们额外的分类和质量分析将有助于选择合适的分类方案，在实施科学领域的研究举措。本文的在线版本（10.1186/s12874-017-0441-2）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
As implementation science advances, the number of interventions to promote the translation of evidence into healthcare, health systems, or health policy is growing. Accordingly, classification schemes for these knowledge translation (KT) interventions have emerged. A recent scoping review identified 51 classification schemes of KT interventions to integrate evidence into healthcare practice; however, the review did not evaluate the quality of the classification schemes or provide detailed information to assist researchers in selecting a scheme for their context and purpose. This study aimed to further examine and assess the quality of these classification schemes of KT interventions, and provide information to aid researchers when selecting a classification scheme. We abstracted the following information from each of the original 51 classification scheme articles: authors’ objectives; purpose of the scheme and field of application; socioecologic level (individual, organizational, community, system); adaptability (broad versus specific); target group (patients, providers, policy-makers), intent (policy, education, practice), and purpose (dissemination versus implementation). Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodological quality of the development of each classification scheme using an adapted version of the AGREE II tool. Based on these assessments, two independent reviewers reached consensus about whether to recommend each scheme for researcher use, or not. Of the 51 original classification schemes, we excluded seven that were not specific classification schemes, not accessible or duplicates. Of the remaining 44 classification schemes, nine were not recommended. Of the 35 recommended classification schemes, ten focused on behaviour change and six focused on population health. Many schemes (n = 29) addressed practice considerations. Fewer schemes addressed educational or policy objectives. Twenty-five classification schemes had broad applicability, six were specific, and four had elements of both. Twenty-three schemes targeted health providers, nine targeted both patients and providers and one targeted policy-makers. Most classification schemes were intended for implementation rather than dissemination. Thirty-five classification schemes of KT interventions were developed and reported with sufficient rigour to be recommended for use by researchers interested in KT in healthcare. Our additional categorization and quality analysis will aid in selecting suitable classification schemes for research initiatives in the field of implementation science. The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0441-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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：
4
作者：
Bragge, Peter;Grimshaw, Jeremy M.;Colquhoun, Heather
通讯作者：
Colquhoun, Heather
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Brehaut, Jamie C.;Eva, Kevin W.
通讯作者：
Eva, Kevin W.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Goel, P;RossDegnan, D;Soumerai, S
通讯作者：
Soumerai, S
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Abraham, Charles;Michie, Susan
通讯作者：
Michie, Susan