Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey

Abstract

BackgroundTheories provide a synthesizing architecture for implementation science. The underuse, superficial use, and misuse of theories pose a substantial scientific challenge for implementation science and may relate to challenges in selecting from the many theories in the field. Implementation scientists may benefit from guidance for selecting a theory for a specific study or project. Understanding how implementation scientists select theories will help inform efforts to develop such guidance. Our objective was to identify which theories implementation scientists use, how they use theories, and the criteria used to select theories.MethodsWe identified initial lists of uses and criteria for selecting implementation theories based on seminal articles and an iterative consensus process. We incorporated these lists into a self-administered survey for completion by self-identified implementation scientists. We recruited potential respondents at the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health and via several international email lists. We used frequencies and percentages to report results.ResultsTwo hundred twenty-three implementation scientists from 12 countries responded to the survey. They reported using more than 100 different theories spanning several disciplines. Respondents reported using theories primarily to identify implementation determinants, inform data collection, enhance conceptual clarity, and guide implementation planning. Of the 19 criteria presented in the survey, the criteria used by the most respondents to select theory included analytic level (58%), logical consistency/plausibility (56%), empirical support (53%), and description of a change process (54%). The criteria used by the fewest respondents included fecundity (10%), uniqueness (12%), and falsifiability (15%).ConclusionsImplementation scientists use a large number of criteria to select theories, but there is little consensus on which are most important. Our results suggest that the selection of implementation theories is often haphazard or driven by convenience or prior exposure. Variation in approaches to selecting theory warn against prescriptive guidance for theory selection. Instead, implementation scientists may benefit from considering the criteria that we propose in this paper and using them to justify their theory selection. Future research should seek to refine the criteria for theory selection to promote more consistent and appropriate use of theory in implementation science.

Planning for Implementation Success Using RE-AIM and CFIR Frameworks: A Qualitative Study

“…When combining frameworks, it is important to ensure they can yield complementary information and avoid overly complex, conflicting or redundant sets of constructs (27). Recommendations and tools for selecting the most appropriate frameworks for different purposes are under development (28,29) and in the future can potentially help implementation scientists select the most relevant frameworks for their specific project needs. At minimum, justification for why a framework or combination of frameworks were selected should be provided (30).…”

What hinders and helps academics to conduct Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) research in the field of nutrition and physical activity? An international perspective

“…D&I research has grown rapidly over the past few decades. Many models dedicated to D&I research have been identified [6,7], and there are now multiple training institutes to support capacity building (e.g., the Training Institute for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health [TIDIRH] [8]), and dedicated translational research funding schemes (e.g., The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] Partnership Project grants) designed to increase collaboration between researchers and healthfocused end-users to directly inform policy and practice [9]. Methodological advances and funding streams to support dissemination, implementation, and scale-up trials are promising; however, from discovery to delivery, effective translation of evidence-based programs and policies in practice are dependent on extensive interacting multilevel influences.…”

Stichwortbeitrag Implementationsforschung: Wie Wissenschaft zu Verbesserungen im Bildungssystem beitragen kann

“…In einer Befragung von über 200 Implementationsforschenden aus insgesamt 12 Staaten durch Birken et al (2017) zeigte sich, dass Rahmenmodelle vor allem aufgegriffen wurden, um Implementationsprozesse planen, Einflussfaktoren und Determinanten identifizieren und die Datenerhebung anleiten zu können. Nur 15 % der Befragten gaben an, theoretische Annahmen über Implementationsprozesse und ihre Wirkungen prüfen zu wollen (vgl.…”