Suchergebnisse

Abstract
A supportive organizational context is important for successfully implementing evidence-based practice (EBP). Managers have an important role in creating organizational prerequisites for EBP. The present study compared how top- and middle-level managers describe the process of implementing EBP and the factors influencing this process. Data were collected through interviews with twenty-two managers in social services, and analysed with thematic deductive analysis based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the COM-B model. Findings showed that top-level managers focused more on strategic- and system-level issues, e.g. external comparisons, dialogue with authorities and creating support systems, while the middle managers focused on the operative implementation at staff level, i.e. motivating and involving staff. Furthermore, the two groups had different understandings of EBP. To conclude, there needs to be an alignment in the understanding of, and support for, EBP between the different levels of managers. To create a mutual understanding of what EBP entails and to clearly communicate how the organization applies the different steps of the EBP process could be crucial steps in enabling the implementation of EBP, and needs to be done in dialogue between middle- and top-level managers.

Background:
Research quality is often discussed in terms of excellence, emphasising replicability and trustworthiness. Practice-based research instead emphasises implementability and practical impact, and thus, may reflect other values and logics and challenge how high-quality practice-based research is defined. The aim of this study is to explore what characterises excellent practice-based research.

Method:
R&D staff at social and health care organisations in Sweden were invited to participate in a concept mapping study. Forty-eight participants were prompted to finish the sentence: 'Excellent practice-based research is characterised by …' in a brainstorming session. Next, participants (n=22) worked individually to sort statements by similarity and rate perceived importance (n=13) and experience (n=10). Data was analysed with multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis and t-tests. Lastly, a digital workshop with 50 participants was conducted to facilitate the interpretation of cluster solutions.

Results:
Eighty-three statements were distilled into 11 clusters from characteristics typical for traditional academic values (for example, 'deploying appropriate methods') and practice-based research (for example, 'being actionable') to characteristics emphasising the unique blend between them, such as 'capturing and conveying reality' and 'embracing different agendas and perspectives', the latter rated as the most important quality of excellent practice-based research, followed by 'deploying appropriate methods' and 'being actionable'.

Conclusions:
Practice-based research is a complex field, addressing both 'why things are' and 'how they work'. This study offers insights into how excellent practice-based research can be defined, broadening the view of what excellence entails.

Background:A supportive context is essential for successful implementation processes. Local politicians are delivery system actors who might both enable and hinder the implementation of health and social policies.
Aims and objectives:The study examines the relationship between perceived prerequisites and the type of actions taken by local political committees to support the implementation of evidence-based practice in social services.
Methods:A cross-sectional web survey targeting the chair and vice-chair of committees responsible for social services in Sweden (n=181). The data was analysed with regression analysis, cluster analysis and ANOVA.
Findings:Three clusters of action were identified (passive, neutral and active), capturing the reported actions taken by the committees to support implementation of EBP. The committees' perceived prerequisites (capability, motivation, and opportunity) were highest in the active cluster and lowest in the passive cluster. The clusters also differed regarding chair/vice-chair educational level, and type of municipality in which the chair/vice-chair were active.
Discussions and conclusion:The variation in reported actions among the committees to support the implementation of EBP implies that some social service organisations might lack the contextual support they need for implementing EBP. The prerequisites for the committees might need to be strengthened with regard to capability, motivation and opportunity. This study is an indication of the relationship between committees' prerequisites and their actions in the implementation of EBP, but further research is needed.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe the creation of a scale-the iLead scale-through adaptations of existing domain-specific scales that measure active and passive implementation leadership, and to describe the psychometric properties of this scale. METHODS: Data collected from a leadership intervention were used in this validation study. Respondents were 336 healthcare professionals (90% female and 10% male; mean age 47 years) whose first-line and second-line managers participated in the intervention. The data were collected in the Stockholm regional healthcare organisation that offer primary, psychiatric, rehabilitation and acute hospital care, among other areas. The items for measuring implementation leadership were based on existent research and the full-range leadership model. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to evaluate the dimensionality of the scale, followed by tests for reliability and convergent, discriminant and criterion-related validity using correlations and multilevel regression analyses. RESULTS: The final scale consists of 16 items clustered into four subscales representing active implementation leadership, and one scale signifying passive implementation leadership. Findings showed that the hypothesised model had an acceptable model fit (χ2(99)=382.864**, Comparative Fit Index=0.935, Tucker-Lewis Index=0.911, root mean square error of approximation=0.059). The internal consistency and convergent, discriminant and criterion-related validity were all satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: The iLead scale is a valid measure of implementation leadership and is a tool for understanding how active and passive leader behaviours influence an implementation process. This brief scale may be particularly valuable to apply in training focusing on facilitating implementation, and in evaluating leader training. Moreover, the scale can be useful in evaluating various leader behaviours associated with implementation success or failure. ; Bio4Energy

Participatory intervention approaches that are embedded in existing organizational structures may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational interventions, but concrete tools are lacking. In the present article, we use a realist evaluation approach to explore the role of kaizen, a lean tool for participatory continuous improvement, in improving employee well-being in two cluster-randomized, controlled participatory intervention studies. Case 1 is from the Danish Postal Service, where kaizen boards were used to implement action plans. The results of multi-group structural equation modeling showed that kaizen served as a mechanism that increased the level of awareness of and capacity to manage psychosocial issues, which, in turn, predicted increased job satisfaction and mental health. Case 2 is from a regional hospital in Sweden that integrated occupational health processes with a pre-existing kaizen system. Multi-group structural equation modeling revealed that, in the intervention group, kaizen work predicted better integration of organizational and employee objectives after 12 months, which, in turn, predicted increased job satisfaction and decreased discomfort at 24 months. The findings suggest that participatory and structured problem-solving approaches that are familiar and visual to employees can facilitate organizational interventions.

Background A challenge to implementation is management of the adaptation-fidelity dilemma or the balance between adopting an intervention with fidelity while assuring fit when transferred between contexts. A prior meta-analysis found that adapted interventions produce larger effects than novel and adopted interventions. This study attempts to replicate and expand previous findings. Methods Meta-analysis was used to compare effects across a whole-population of Swedish outcome studies. Main and subcategories are explored. Results The 523 studies included adapted (22%), adopted (33%), and novel (45%) interventions. The largest effect was found for adapted followed by novel and adopted interventions. Interventions in the mental health setting showed the highest effects, followed by somatic healthcare and social services. Conclusions These results replicate and expand earlier findings. Results were stable across settings with the exception of social services. Consistent with a growing body of evidence results suggest that context is important when transferring interventions across settings.

Background: A large number of practices used in health care lack evidence of effectiveness and may be unnecessary or even cause harm. As such, they should be de-implemented. While there are multiple actors involved in de-implementation of such low-value care (LVC) practices, ultimately, the decision to abandon a practice is often made by each health care professional. A recent scoping review identified 6 types of factors affecting the utilization vs. abandonment of LVC practices. These factors concern health care professionals, patients, outer context, inner context, processes, and the characteristics of LVC practice itself. However, it is unclear how professionals weigh these different factors in and how these determinants influence their decisions about abandoning LVC practices. This project aims to investigate how health care professionals account for various factors as they make decisions regarding de-implementation of LVC practices. Methods: This project will be carried out in two main steps. First, a factorial survey experiment (a vignette study) will be applied to empirically test the relevance of factors previously identified in the literature for health care professionals' decision-making about de-implementation. Second, interactive workshops with relevant stakeholders will be carried out to develop a framework for professionals' decision-making and to offer suggestions for interventions to support de-implementation of LVC practices. Discussion: The project has the potential to contribute to improved understanding of the decision-making involved in de-implementation of LVC practices. We will identify which factors are more important when they make judgments about utilizing versus abandoning LVC practices. The results will provide the basis for recommendations concerning appropriate interventions to support de-implementation decision-making processes. ; Funding agencies: Swedish ResearchCouncil for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE) (project no. 2020-01197) after a competitive peer-review process. ...

BackgroundMany interventions used in health care lack evidence of effectiveness and may be unnecessary or even cause harm, and should therefore be de-implemented. Lists of such ineffective, low-value practices are common, but these lists have little chance of leading to improvements without sufficient knowledge regarding how de-implementation can be governed and carried out. However, decisions regarding de-implementation are not only a matter of scientific evidence; the puzzle is far more complex with political, economic, and relational interests play a role. This project aims at exploring the governance of de-implementation of low-value practices from the perspectives of national and regional governments and senior management at provider organizations.MethodsTheories of complexity science and organizational alignment are used, and interviews are conducted with stakeholders involved in the governance of low-value practice de-implementation, including national and regional governments (focusing on two contrasting regions in Sweden) and senior management at provider organizations. In addition, an ongoing process for governing de-implementation in accordance with current recommendations is followed over an 18-month period to explore how governance is conducted in practice. A framework for the governance of de-implementation and policy suggestions will be developed to guide de-implementation governance.DiscussionThis study contributes to knowledge about the governance of de-implementation of low-value care practices. The study provides rich empirical data from multiple system levels regarding how de-implementation of low-value practices is currently governed. The study also makes a theoretical contribution by applying the theories of complexity and organizational alignment, which may provide generalizable knowledge about the interplay between stakeholders across system levels and how and why certain factors influence the governance of de-implementation. The project employs a solution-oriented perspective by developing a framework for de-implementation of low-value practices and suggesting practical strategies to improve the governance of de-implementation. The framework and strategies can thereafter be evaluated for validity and impact in future studies. ; Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare (FORTE) [2018-01557]

OBJECTIVES: Kaizen, or continuous improvement, lies at the core of lean. Kaizen is implemented through practices that enable employees to propose ideas for improvement and solve problems. The aim of this study is to describe the types of issues and improvement suggestions that hospital employees feel empowered to address through kaizen practices in order to understand when and how kaizen is used in healthcare. METHODS: We analysed 186 structured kaizen documents containing improvement suggestions that were produced by 165 employees at a Swedish hospital. Directed content analysis was used to categorise the suggestions into following categories: type of situation (proactive or reactive) triggering an action; type of process addressed (technical/administrative, support and clinical); complexity level (simple or complex); and type of outcomes aimed for (operational or sociotechnical). Compliance to the kaizen template was calculated. RESULTS: 72% of the improvement suggestions were reactions to a perceived problem. Support, technical and administrative, and primary clinical processes were involved in 47%, 38% and 16% of the suggestions, respectively. The majority of the kaizen documents addressed simple situations and focused on operational outcomes. The degree of compliance to the kaizen template was high for several items concerning the identification of problems and the proposed solutions, and low for items related to the test and implementation of solutions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to combine kaizen practices with improvement and innovation practices that help staff and managers to address complex issues, such as the improvement of clinical care processes. The limited focus on sociotechnical aspects and the partial compliance to kaizen templates may indicate a limited understanding of the entire kaizen process and of how it relates to the overall organisational goals. This in turn can hamper the sustainability of kaizen practices and results.

BACKGROUND: Leadership is a key feature in implementation efforts, which is highlighted in most implementation frameworks. However, in studying leadership and implementation, only few studies rely on established leadership theory, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding what kinds of leadership managers should perform and under what circumstances. In industrial and organizational psychology, transformational leadership and contingent reward have been identified as effective leadership styles for facilitating change processes, and these styles map well onto the behaviors identified in implementation research. However, it has been questioned whether these general leadership styles are sufficient to foster specific results; it has therefore been suggested that the leadership should be specific to the domain of interest, e.g., implementation. To this end, an intervention specifically involving leadership, which we call implementation leadership, is developed and tested in this project. The aim of the intervention is to increase healthcare managers' generic implementation leadership skills, which they can use for any implementation efforts in the future. METHODS/DESIGN: The intervention is conducted in healthcare in Stockholm County, Sweden, where first- and second-line managers were invited to participate. Two intervention groups are included, including 52 managers. Intervention group 1 consists of individual managers, and group 2 of managers from one division. A control group of 39 managers is additionally included. The intervention consists of five half-day workshops aiming at increasing the managers' implementation leadership, which is the primary outcome of this intervention. The intervention will be evaluated through a mixed-methods approach. A pre- and post-design applying questionnaires at three time points (pre-, directly after the intervention, and 6 months post-intervention) will be used, in addition to process evaluation questionnaires related to each workshop. In addition, interviews will be conducted over time to evaluate the intervention. DISCUSSION: The proposed intervention represents a novel contribution to the implementation literature, being the first to focus on strengthening healthcare managers' generic skills in implementation leadership. ; Bio4Energy

Background: A considerable proportion of interventions provided to patients lack evidence of their effectiveness. This implies that patients may receive ineffective, unnecessary or even harmful care. However, despite some empirical studies in the field, there has been no synthesis of determinants impacting the use of low-value care (LVC) and the process of de-implementing LVC. Aim: The aim was to identify determinants influencing the use of LVC, as well as determinants for de-implementation of LVC practices in health care. Methods: A scoping review was performed based on the framework by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched four scientific databases, conducted snowball searches of relevant articles and hand searched the journal Implementation Science for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies reporting on determinants for the use of LVC or de-implementation of LVC. The abstract review and the full-text review were conducted in duplicate and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form and the determinants were inductively coded and categorised in an iterative process conducted by the project group. Results: In total, 101 citations were included in the review. Of these, 92 reported on determinants for the use of LVC and nine on determinants for de-implementation. The studies were conducted in a range of health care settings and investigated a variety of LVC practices with LVC medication prescriptions, imaging and screening procedures being the most common. The identified determinants for the use of LVC as well as for de-implementation of LVC practices broadly concerned: patients, professionals, outer context, inner context, process and evidence and LVC practice. The results were discussed in relation to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Conclusion: The identified determinants largely overlap with existing implementation frameworks, although patient expectations and ...