Aligning organisational priorities and implementation science for cancer research.
Cancer
Implementation science
Organisational priorities
Theory informed
stakeholder
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Mar 2024
14 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
25
07
2023
accepted:
28
02
2024
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
15
3
2024
entrez:
15
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The challenge of implementing evidence into routine clinical practice is well recognised and implementation science offers theories, models and frameworks to promote investigation into delivery of evidence-based care. Embedding implementation researchers into health systems is a novel approach to ensuring research is situated in day-to-day practice dilemmas. To optimise the value of embedded implementation researchers and resources, the aim of this study was to investigate stakeholders' views on opportunities for implementation science research in a cancer setting that holds potential to impact on care. The research objectives were to: 1) Establish stakeholder and theory informed organisation-level implementation science priorities and 2) Identify and prioritise a test case pilot implementation research project. We undertook a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Participants held either a formal leadership role, were research active or a consumer advocate and affiliated with either a specialist cancer hospital or a cancer alliance of ten hospitals. Interview data were summarised and shared with participants prior to undertaking both thematic analysis, to identify priority areas for implementation research, and content analysis, to identify potential pilot implementation research projects. The selected pilot Implementation research project was prioritised using a synthesis of an organisational and implementation prioritisation framework - the organisational priority setting framework and APEASE framework. Thirty-one people participated between August 2022 and February 2023. Four themes were identified: 1) Integration of services to address organisational priorities e.g., tackling fragmented services; 2) Application of digital health interventions e.g., identifying the potential benefits of digital health interventions; 3) Identification of potential for implementation research, including deimplementation i.e., discontinuing ineffective or low value care and; 4) Focusing on direct patient engagement e.g., wider consumer awareness of the challenges in delivering cancer care. Six potential pilot implementation research projects were identified and the EMBED project, to support clinicians to refer appropriate patients with cancer for genetic testing, was selected using the synthesised prioritisation framework. Using a theory informed and structured approach the alignment between strategic organisational priorities and implementation research priorities can be identified. As a result, the implementation research focus can be placed on activities with the highest potential impact.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The challenge of implementing evidence into routine clinical practice is well recognised and implementation science offers theories, models and frameworks to promote investigation into delivery of evidence-based care. Embedding implementation researchers into health systems is a novel approach to ensuring research is situated in day-to-day practice dilemmas. To optimise the value of embedded implementation researchers and resources, the aim of this study was to investigate stakeholders' views on opportunities for implementation science research in a cancer setting that holds potential to impact on care. The research objectives were to: 1) Establish stakeholder and theory informed organisation-level implementation science priorities and 2) Identify and prioritise a test case pilot implementation research project.
METHODS
METHODS
We undertook a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Participants held either a formal leadership role, were research active or a consumer advocate and affiliated with either a specialist cancer hospital or a cancer alliance of ten hospitals. Interview data were summarised and shared with participants prior to undertaking both thematic analysis, to identify priority areas for implementation research, and content analysis, to identify potential pilot implementation research projects. The selected pilot Implementation research project was prioritised using a synthesis of an organisational and implementation prioritisation framework - the organisational priority setting framework and APEASE framework.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-one people participated between August 2022 and February 2023. Four themes were identified: 1) Integration of services to address organisational priorities e.g., tackling fragmented services; 2) Application of digital health interventions e.g., identifying the potential benefits of digital health interventions; 3) Identification of potential for implementation research, including deimplementation i.e., discontinuing ineffective or low value care and; 4) Focusing on direct patient engagement e.g., wider consumer awareness of the challenges in delivering cancer care. Six potential pilot implementation research projects were identified and the EMBED project, to support clinicians to refer appropriate patients with cancer for genetic testing, was selected using the synthesised prioritisation framework.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Using a theory informed and structured approach the alignment between strategic organisational priorities and implementation research priorities can be identified. As a result, the implementation research focus can be placed on activities with the highest potential impact.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38486219
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10801-x
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-10801-x
pmc: PMC10938739
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
338Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Implement Sci. 2021 Nov 24;16(1):100
pubmed: 34819122
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Jul;51(7):854-861
pubmed: 34551874
Annu Rev Psychol. 2022 Jan 4;73:719-748
pubmed: 34665669
Internet Interv. 2021 Jul 15;25:100429
pubmed: 34401388
Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):166-75
pubmed: 24411645
Qual Res. 2020 Oct;20(5):565-581
pubmed: 32903872
Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:477-97
pubmed: 24159921
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 May;7(5):
pubmed: 35501067
BMJ Qual Saf. 2023 Feb;32(2):65-68
pubmed: 36517225
J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Jun;25(3):373-380
pubmed: 30632246
BMC Med. 2020 May 4;18(1):102
pubmed: 32362273
Int J Integr Care. 2013 Sep 25;13:e039
pubmed: 24179458
Implement Sci. 2022 Jan 27;17(1):10
pubmed: 35086538
Am J Manag Care. 2018 Sep 1;24(9):e278-e284
pubmed: 30222925
Front Public Health. 2019 Jun 18;7:158
pubmed: 31275915
Front Health Serv. 2022 Nov 30;2:1004167
pubmed: 36925881
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Nov 14;18(1):857
pubmed: 30428882
Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 21;10:53
pubmed: 25895742
Psychol Health. 2023 Jun;38(6):766-794
pubmed: 35839082
Implement Sci. 2017 Aug 29;12(1):108
pubmed: 28851459
Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156-65
pubmed: 24411644
Syst Rev. 2020 Dec 3;9(1):277
pubmed: 33272313
BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Sep 08;4(1):25
pubmed: 15355544
BMC Psychol. 2015 Sep 16;3:32
pubmed: 26376626
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Dec 28;19(1):243
pubmed: 31883517
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):731-742
pubmed: 31321849
Aust Health Rev. 2020 Sep;44(5):806-813
pubmed: 32780985
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Jan 3;18(1):1
pubmed: 31900230
Health Expect. 2018 Aug;21(4):707-713
pubmed: 29512248
JAMA. 2019 Oct 15;322(15):1501-1509
pubmed: 31589283
J Comp Eff Res. 2018 Dec;7(12):1153-1159
pubmed: 30411976