Changing hearts and minds: theorizing how, when, and under what conditions three social influence implementation strategies work.

causal pathway diagrams implementation strategies mechanisms social influence theorizing

Journal

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

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
received: 04 06 2024
accepted: 26 08 2024
medline: 20 9 2024
pubmed: 20 9 2024
entrez: 20 9 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Opinion leadership, educational outreach visiting, and innovation championing are commonly used strategies to address barriers to implementing innovations and evidence-based practices in healthcare settings. Despite voluminous research, ambiguities persist in how these strategies work and under what conditions they work well, work poorly, or work at all. The current paper develops middle-range theories to address this gap. Conceptual articles, systematic reviews, and empirical studies informed the development of causal pathway diagrams (CPDs). CPDs are visualization tools for depicting and theorizing about the causal process through which strategies operate, including the mechanisms they activate, the barriers they address, and the proximal and distal outcomes they produce. CPDs also clarify the contextual conditions (i.e., preconditions and moderators) that influence whether, and to what extent, the strategy's causal process unfolds successfully. Expert panels of implementation scientists and health professionals rated the plausibility of these preliminary CPDs and offered comments and suggestions on them. Theoretically, opinion leadership addresses potential adopters' uncertainty about likely consequences of innovation use (determinant) by promoting positive attitude formation about the innovation (mechanism), which results in an adoption decision (proximal outcome), which leads to innovation use (intermediate outcome). As this causal process repeats, penetration, or spread of innovation use, occurs (distal outcome). Educational outreach visiting addresses knowledge barriers, attitudinal barriers, and behavioral barriers (determinants) by promoting critical thinking and reflection about evidence and practice (mechanism), which results in behavioral intention (proximal outcome), behavior change (intermediate outcome), and fidelity, or guideline adherence (distal outcome). Innovation championing addresses organizational inertia, indifference, and resistance (determinants) by promoting buy-in to the vision, fostering a positive implementation climate, and increasing collective efficacy (mechanisms), which leads to participation in implementation activities (proximal outcome), initial use of the innovation with increasing skill (intermediate outcome) and, ultimately, greater penetration and fidelity (distal outcomes). Experts found the preliminary CPDs plausible or highly plausible and suggested additional mechanisms, moderators, and preconditions, which were used to amend the initial CPD. The middle-range theories depicted in the CPDs furnish testable propositions for implementation research and offer guidance for selecting, designing, and evaluating these social influence implementation strategies in both research studies and practice settings.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Opinion leadership, educational outreach visiting, and innovation championing are commonly used strategies to address barriers to implementing innovations and evidence-based practices in healthcare settings. Despite voluminous research, ambiguities persist in how these strategies work and under what conditions they work well, work poorly, or work at all. The current paper develops middle-range theories to address this gap.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Conceptual articles, systematic reviews, and empirical studies informed the development of causal pathway diagrams (CPDs). CPDs are visualization tools for depicting and theorizing about the causal process through which strategies operate, including the mechanisms they activate, the barriers they address, and the proximal and distal outcomes they produce. CPDs also clarify the contextual conditions (i.e., preconditions and moderators) that influence whether, and to what extent, the strategy's causal process unfolds successfully. Expert panels of implementation scientists and health professionals rated the plausibility of these preliminary CPDs and offered comments and suggestions on them.
Findings UNASSIGNED
Theoretically, opinion leadership addresses potential adopters' uncertainty about likely consequences of innovation use (determinant) by promoting positive attitude formation about the innovation (mechanism), which results in an adoption decision (proximal outcome), which leads to innovation use (intermediate outcome). As this causal process repeats, penetration, or spread of innovation use, occurs (distal outcome). Educational outreach visiting addresses knowledge barriers, attitudinal barriers, and behavioral barriers (determinants) by promoting critical thinking and reflection about evidence and practice (mechanism), which results in behavioral intention (proximal outcome), behavior change (intermediate outcome), and fidelity, or guideline adherence (distal outcome). Innovation championing addresses organizational inertia, indifference, and resistance (determinants) by promoting buy-in to the vision, fostering a positive implementation climate, and increasing collective efficacy (mechanisms), which leads to participation in implementation activities (proximal outcome), initial use of the innovation with increasing skill (intermediate outcome) and, ultimately, greater penetration and fidelity (distal outcomes). Experts found the preliminary CPDs plausible or highly plausible and suggested additional mechanisms, moderators, and preconditions, which were used to amend the initial CPD.
Discussion UNASSIGNED
The middle-range theories depicted in the CPDs furnish testable propositions for implementation research and offer guidance for selecting, designing, and evaluating these social influence implementation strategies in both research studies and practice settings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39301122
doi: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1443955
pmc: PMC11410765
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1443955

Informations de copyright

© 2024 Weiner, Meza, Klasnja, Lengnick-Hall, Buchanan, Lyon, Mettert, Boynton, Powell and Lewis.

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.

Auteurs

Bryan J Weiner (BJ)

Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Rosemary D Meza (RD)

Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.

Predrag Klasnja (P)

School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

Rebecca Lengnick-Hall (R)

Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis, MO, United States.

Gretchen J Buchanan (GJ)

Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Aaron R Lyon (AR)

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Kayne D Mettert (KD)

Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.

Marcella H Boynton (MH)

Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapell Hill, NC, United States.

Byron J Powell (BJ)

Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis, MO, United States.

Cara C Lewis (CC)

Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.

Classifications MeSH