Protocol for conducting scoping reviews to map implementation strategies in different care settings: focusing on evidence-based interventions for preselected phenomena in people with dementia

Abstract

IntroductionVarious evidence-based interventions are available to improve the care of people with dementia in different care settings, many of which are not or are only partially implemented in routine care. Different implementation strategies have been developed to support the implementation of interventions in routine care; however, the implementation of complex interventions remains challenging. The aim of our reviews is to identify promising strategies for, significant facilitators of and barriers to the implementation of evidence-based interventions for very common dementia care phenomena: (A) behaviour that challenges supporting a person with dementia in long-term care, (B) delirium in acute care and (C) the postacute care needs of people with dementia.Methods and analysisWe will conduct one scoping review for each preselected dementia care phenomenon (A, B and C). For this, three literature searches will be carried out in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL (via EBSCO) and PsycINFO (via EBSCO). Additionally, we will perform backward and forward citation tracking via reference lists and Google Scholar. Identified records will be independently screened by two reviewers (title/abstract and full text) using the defined inclusion criteria. We will include all study designs and publications in the German or English language. For the data analyses, we will conduct a deductive content analysis using two different analytical approaches: Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Ethics and disseminationDue to the nature of a review, ethical clearing is not required. We will disseminate our results in peer-reviewed journals, workshops with stakeholders, and (inter)national conferences.

Mapping implementation strategies of evidence-based interventions for three preselected phenomena in people with dementia—a scoping review

“…We described our methodological approach for the scoping review in our published review protocol [ 39 ], and according to Pieper, Ge [ 40 ], we reused the text of our review protocol for the methods sections in this publication and made changes in the method section where the process differed between the planned and conducted methodological approach. For reporting our scoping review, we use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist [ 41 ], as applicable (Supplementary Table 1 ).…”

Implementation strategies to increase human papillomavirus vaccination uptake for adolescent girls in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review protocol

“…Some examples of these implementations strategies include; i) conduct educational meetings, defined as “hold meetings targeted toward different stakeholder groups to teach them about the clinical innovation,” ii) build a coalition, defined as “recruit and cultivate relationships with partners in the implementation effort,” iii) access new funding defined as “access new or existing money to facilitate the implementation” [ 33 ]. The ERIC project classification has been used in scoping reviews in other health fields such as dementia [ 34 , 35 ] and costing of implementation strategies [ 36 ] scoping reviews in preference to other taxonomies as it is more detailed with a conceptually clear description of strategies.…”

Participatory development and implementation of a dementia care pathway with intervention bundles in acute care during the coronavirus pandemic: A process evaluation study

“…Despite such a know-do gap in dementia-specific acute care, relatively little attention has been given to the implementation of evidence-based, person-and family-centred care to this vulnerable patient group beyond staff dementia education and training programmes, particularly within acute care settings (Karrer et al, 2020;Manietta et al, 2021;Sullivan et al, 2017). To improve the quality of in acute care provision to persons with ADRD/MCI and their families, we developed an evidence-based care pathway with intervention bundles based on prior work investigating current care experiences, practices and challenges within acute care (Ernst et al, 2020;Naef et al, 2018;Petry et al, 2019), and implemented it during the COVID−19 pandemic on two units of a health sciences centre.…”

“…Nonetheless, staff may fail to recognise the importance of dementia‐specific care, lack knowledge on best practices related to ADRD/MCI, have insufficient skills and therefore shy away from the challenges associated with communicating and interacting with persons with ADRD/MCI and their families (Featherstone et al, 2019; Kirchen Peters & Krupp, 2019; Scerri et al, 2020). Despite such a know‐do gap in dementia‐specific acute care, relatively little attention has been given to the implementation of evidence‐based, person‐ and family‐centred care to this vulnerable patient group beyond staff dementia education and training programmes, particularly within acute care settings (Karrer et al, 2020; Manietta et al, 2021; Sullivan et al, 2017). To improve the quality of in acute care provision to persons with ADRD/MCI and their families, we developed an evidence‐based care pathway with intervention bundles based on prior work investigating current care experiences, practices and challenges within acute care (Ernst et al, 2020; Naef et al, 2018; Petry et al, 2019), and implemented it during the COVID−19 pandemic on two units of a health sciences centre.…”