Understanding how and why de-implementation works in health and care: research protocol for a realist synthesis of evidence.


Journal

Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 08 2019
Historique:
received: 22 11 2018
accepted: 22 07 2019
entrez: 7 8 2019
pubmed: 7 8 2019
medline: 29 7 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Strategies to improve the effectiveness and quality of health and care have predominantly emphasised the implementation of new research and evidence into service organisation and delivery. A parallel, but less understood issue is how clinicians and service leaders stop existing practices and interventions that are no longer evidence based, where new evidence supersedes old evidence, or interventions are replaced with those that are more cost effective. The aim of this evidence synthesis is to produce meaningful programme theory and practical guidance for policy makers, managers and clinicians to understand how and why de-implementation processes and procedures can work. The synthesis will examine the attributes or characteristics that constitute the concept of de-implementation. The research team will then draw on the principles of realist inquiry to provide an explanatory account of how, in what context and for whom to explain the successful processes and impacts of de-implementation. The review will be conducted in four phases over 18 months. Phase 1: develop a framework to map the preliminary programme theories through an initial scoping of the literature and consultation with key stakeholders. Phase 2: systematic searches of the evidence to develop the theories identified in phase 1. Phase 3: validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. Phase 4: formulating actionable recommendations for managers, commissioners and service leaders about what works through different approaches to de-implementation. This evidence synthesis will address gaps in knowledge about de-implementation across health and care services and ensure that guidance about strategies and approaches accounts for contextual factors, which may be operating at different organisational and decision-making levels. Through the development of the programme theory, which explains what works, how and under which circumstances, findings from the evidence synthesis will support managers and service leaders to make measured decisions about de-implementation. PROSPERO CRD42017081030.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Strategies to improve the effectiveness and quality of health and care have predominantly emphasised the implementation of new research and evidence into service organisation and delivery. A parallel, but less understood issue is how clinicians and service leaders stop existing practices and interventions that are no longer evidence based, where new evidence supersedes old evidence, or interventions are replaced with those that are more cost effective. The aim of this evidence synthesis is to produce meaningful programme theory and practical guidance for policy makers, managers and clinicians to understand how and why de-implementation processes and procedures can work.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
The synthesis will examine the attributes or characteristics that constitute the concept of de-implementation. The research team will then draw on the principles of realist inquiry to provide an explanatory account of how, in what context and for whom to explain the successful processes and impacts of de-implementation. The review will be conducted in four phases over 18 months. Phase 1: develop a framework to map the preliminary programme theories through an initial scoping of the literature and consultation with key stakeholders. Phase 2: systematic searches of the evidence to develop the theories identified in phase 1. Phase 3: validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. Phase 4: formulating actionable recommendations for managers, commissioners and service leaders about what works through different approaches to de-implementation.
DISCUSSION
This evidence synthesis will address gaps in knowledge about de-implementation across health and care services and ensure that guidance about strategies and approaches accounts for contextual factors, which may be operating at different organisational and decision-making levels. Through the development of the programme theory, which explains what works, how and under which circumstances, findings from the evidence synthesis will support managers and service leaders to make measured decisions about de-implementation.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017081030.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31383018
doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1111-8
pii: 10.1186/s13643-019-1111-8
pmc: PMC6683493
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

194

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 16/115/18
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 08;9:1
pubmed: 24398253
Med J Aust. 2018 Feb 19;208(3):105-106
pubmed: 29438640
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Mar;128:273-81
pubmed: 25635374
BMC Med. 2015 Oct 06;13:255
pubmed: 26444862
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Ital Heart J Suppl. 2002 Jan;3(1):100-1
pubmed: 11899567
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 26;6(8):e011964
pubmed: 27566640
BMC Med. 2015 Oct 20;13:273
pubmed: 26486727
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 19;7:33
pubmed: 22515663
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):495-501
pubmed: 27512102
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 26;6(8):e013645
pubmed: 27566645

Auteurs

Christopher Burton (C)

Noreen Edwards Chair of Rehabilitation and Nursing Research, Head of School, School of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK. c.burton@bangor.ac.uk.

Lynne Williams (L)

Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

Tracey Bucknall (T)

School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.

Stephen Edwards (S)

Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

Denise Fisher (D)

Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

Beth Hall (B)

Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

Gill Harris (G)

Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK.

Peter Jones (P)

Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

Matthew Makin (M)

The Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Greater Manchester, UK.

Anne McBride (A)

Alliance Manchester Business School, Manchester University, Manchester, UK.

Rachel Meacock (R)

Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester University, Manchester, UK.

John Parkinson (J)

Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

Jo Rycroft-Malone (J)

Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

Justin Waring (J)

Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH