Increasing Access to Organization Theories for Implementation Science.

adoption constructs implementation organization theory propositions sustainment

Journal

Frontiers in health services
ISSN: 2813-0146
Titre abrégé: Front Health Serv
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9918334887706676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 07 03 2022
accepted: 08 06 2022
entrez: 17 3 2023
pubmed: 18 3 2023
medline: 18 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Organization theories offer numerous existing, highly relevant, yet largely untapped explanations of the organizational dynamics underlying evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation. Rooted in ideas regarding power, autonomy, and control, organization theories can explain how and why organizations adopt, implement, and sustain EBI use. Although they have gained visibility, organization theories remain underused in implementation research, perhaps due to their inaccessibility to implementation scientists. To improve access to organization theory among implementation scientists, we summarized organization theories with relevance to implementation science. Led by the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Organization Theory for Implementation Science workgroup, we employed a modified Delphi process to reach a consensus among 18 experts at the intersection of organization and implementation science regarding organization theories with relevance to implementation science. From texts that described the organization theories, using standardized abstraction forms, two investigators independently abstracted information regarding constructs, propositions regarding how or why constructs might influence implementation, the potential relevance of organization theories' propositions for implementation, and overviews of each theory. The investigators then reconciled discrepancies until reaching consensus. A third investigator reviewed reconciled abstraction forms for accuracy, coherence, and completeness. We identified nine organization theories with relevance to implementation science: contingency, complexity, institutional, network, organizational learning, resource dependence, sociotechnical, and transaction cost economics. From the theories, we abstracted 70 constructs and 65 propositions. An example proposition from institutional theory is: "Coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures contribute to organizations…within an organizational field [becoming increasingly similar]." These propositions can be operationalized as levers to facilitate EBI implementation. To increase use in the field, organization theories must be made more accessible to implementation scientists. The abstraction forms developed in this study are now publicly available on the CPCRN website with the goal of increasing access to organization theories among an interdisciplinary audience of implementation scientists through the CPCRN Scholars program and other venues. Next steps include consolidating organization theory constructs into domains and translating the resulting framework for use among researchers, policymakers and practitioners, aiding them in accounting for a comprehensive set of organization theory constructs thought to influence EBI implementation.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Organization theories offer numerous existing, highly relevant, yet largely untapped explanations of the organizational dynamics underlying evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation. Rooted in ideas regarding power, autonomy, and control, organization theories can explain how and why organizations adopt, implement, and sustain EBI use. Although they have gained visibility, organization theories remain underused in implementation research, perhaps due to their inaccessibility to implementation scientists. To improve access to organization theory among implementation scientists, we summarized organization theories with relevance to implementation science.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Led by the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Organization Theory for Implementation Science workgroup, we employed a modified Delphi process to reach a consensus among 18 experts at the intersection of organization and implementation science regarding organization theories with relevance to implementation science. From texts that described the organization theories, using standardized abstraction forms, two investigators independently abstracted information regarding constructs, propositions regarding how or why constructs might influence implementation, the potential relevance of organization theories' propositions for implementation, and overviews of each theory. The investigators then reconciled discrepancies until reaching consensus. A third investigator reviewed reconciled abstraction forms for accuracy, coherence, and completeness.
Findings UNASSIGNED
We identified nine organization theories with relevance to implementation science: contingency, complexity, institutional, network, organizational learning, resource dependence, sociotechnical, and transaction cost economics. From the theories, we abstracted 70 constructs and 65 propositions. An example proposition from institutional theory is: "Coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures contribute to organizations…within an organizational field [becoming increasingly similar]." These propositions can be operationalized as levers to facilitate EBI implementation.
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
To increase use in the field, organization theories must be made more accessible to implementation scientists. The abstraction forms developed in this study are now publicly available on the CPCRN website with the goal of increasing access to organization theories among an interdisciplinary audience of implementation scientists through the CPCRN Scholars program and other venues. Next steps include consolidating organization theory constructs into domains and translating the resulting framework for use among researchers, policymakers and practitioners, aiding them in accounting for a comprehensive set of organization theory constructs thought to influence EBI implementation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36925845
doi: 10.3389/frhs.2022.891507
pmc: PMC10012830
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

891507

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Birken, Ko, Wangen, Wagi, Bender, Nilsen, Choy-Brown, Peluso and Leeman.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Jun;64(3):279-303
pubmed: 17507459
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016 Nov;43(6):909-926
pubmed: 27032411
J Health Organ Manag. 2013;27(1):106-26
pubmed: 23734479
Implement Sci. 2020 Sep 25;15(1):84
pubmed: 32988389
BMC Med. 2018 Apr 30;16(1):63
pubmed: 29706132
Implement Sci. 2014 Apr 17;9:46
pubmed: 24742308
Health Care Manage Rev. 2006 Jan-Mar;31(1):18-25
pubmed: 16493269
Implement Sci. 2017 Jan 5;12(1):2
pubmed: 28057049
J Appl Dev Psychol. 2021 Jul-Aug;75:
pubmed: 34737486
Adm Sci Q. 1981 Sep;26(3):349-77
pubmed: 10252610
Implement Sci. 2017 Oct 30;12(1):124
pubmed: 29084566
Front Health Serv. 2022 Jan 11;1:795144
pubmed: 36926485
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2007 May;34(3):191-201
pubmed: 17211714
Implement Sci. 2021 Jun 10;16(1):61
pubmed: 34112191
Implement Sci. 2011 Aug 30;6:99
pubmed: 21878092
Implement Sci. 2017 May 12;12(1):62
pubmed: 28499408
Implement Sci. 2020 Jun 11;15(1):43
pubmed: 32527274
BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417
pubmed: 16908462
Health Care Manage Rev. 2002 Summer;27(3):60-73
pubmed: 12146784
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Nov 1;177(11):1634-1641
pubmed: 28973516
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1 Suppl 1:S78-83
pubmed: 17129340
BMJ. 2001 Sep 29;323(7315):746-9
pubmed: 11576986
Implement Sci. 2008 May 16;3:26
pubmed: 18485219
Prev Med. 2019 Dec;129S:105832
pubmed: 31521385

Auteurs

Sarah A Birken (SA)

Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.

Linda K Ko (LK)

Washington School of Public Health, Health Systems and Population Health, Seattle, WA, United States.

Mary Wangen (M)

UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.

Cheyenne R Wagi (CR)

Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.

Miriam Bender (M)

Sue & Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.

Per Nilsen (P)

Division of Society and Health, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Mimi Choy-Brown (M)

School of Social Work, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States.

Alexandra Peluso (A)

Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.

Jennifer Leeman (J)

School of Nursing, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.

Classifications MeSH