Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide
Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13012-019-0897-z
复制
发表时间：
2019-08-14
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Sevdalis, Nick
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hull, Louise;Goulding, Lucy;Sevdalis, Nick
设计实施研究是一项复杂而艰巨的任务，特别是对于那些没有接受过实施科学专业培训的应用卫生研究人员来说。我们开发了实施科学研究发展（ImpRes）工具和补充指南，以应对这一挑战，并为研究人员提供一个系统的方法来设计实施研究。方法采用多方法、多阶段的方法。一个国际性的多学科专家小组参与了一个反复的集思广益和建立共识的过程，以产生ImpRes工具的核心领域，代表研究人员在设计实施研究时应该考虑的核心实施科学原则和概念。同时，审查文献和专家投入的迭代过程为工具的开发和内容提供了信息。一旦达成共识，就患者/服务使用者的参与和参与以及经济评估征求专家的意见。ImpRes然后被应用到15个实施和改进科学项目在全国卫生研究所（NIHR）合作的领导应用健康研究和护理（CLAHRC）南伦敦，研究组织在伦敦，英国。应用ImpRes工具的研究人员完成了一份包含11项内容的调查问卷，评估其结构、内容和有用性。结果在设计实施研究时应考虑的10个实施科学领域达成了共识。其中包括执行理论、框架和模式、执行的决定因素、执行战略、执行成果和意外后果。使用ImpRes工具的研究人员发现，它有助于识别缺乏实施科学的项目领域（中位数5/5，IQR 4-5），并有助于提高实施研究的质量（中位数4/5，IQR 4-5），并同意它包含设计实施研究时应考虑的关键组成部分（中位数4/5，IQR 4-4）。应用ImpRes工具的研究人员的定性反馈表明，需要一个补充指南，以促进该工具的使用。结论我们已经开发出一个可行的和可接受的工具，和补充指南，以促进考虑和纳入应用卫生实施研究的核心原则和概念的实施科学。未来的研究需要建立是否应用的工具和指南有实施研究的质量的影响。
Background Designing implementation research can be a complex and daunting task, especially for applied health researchers who have not received specialist training in implementation science. We developed the Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide to address this challenge and provide researchers with a systematic approach to designing implementation research. Methods A multi-method and multi-stage approach was employed. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel engaged in an iterative brainstorming and consensus-building process to generate core domains of the ImpRes tool, representing core implementation science principles and concepts that researchers should consider when designing implementation research. Simultaneously, an iterative process of reviewing the literature and expert input informed the development and content of the tool. Once consensus had been reached, specialist expert input was sought on involving and engaging patients/service users; and economic evaluation. ImpRes was then applied to 15 implementation and improvement science projects across the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, a research organisation in London, UK. Researchers who applied the ImpRes tool completed an 11-item questionnaire evaluating its structure, content and usefulness. Results Consensus was reached on ten implementation science domains to be considered when designing implementation research. These include implementation theories, frameworks and models, determinants of implementation, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and unintended consequences. Researchers who used the ImpRes tool found it useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking (median 5/5, IQR 4-5) and for improving the quality of implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4-5) and agreed that it contained the key components that should be considered when designing implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4-4). Qualitative feedback from researchers who applied the ImpRes tool indicated that a supplementary guide was needed to facilitate use of the tool. Conclusions We have developed a feasible and acceptable tool, and supplementary guide, to facilitate consideration and incorporation of core principles and concepts of implementation science in applied health implementation research. Future research is needed to establish whether application of the tool and guide has an effect on the quality of implementation research.