Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review
Abstract Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVI...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2024-02-01
|
| Series: | Implementation Science Communications |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 |
| _version_ | 1797274430587535360 |
|---|---|
| author | Asya Agulnik Derrecka Boykin Denalee M. O’Malley Julia Price Mia Yang Mark McKone Geoffrey Curran Mona J. Ritchie |
| author_facet | Asya Agulnik Derrecka Boykin Denalee M. O’Malley Julia Price Mia Yang Mark McKone Geoffrey Curran Mona J. Ritchie |
| author_sort | Asya Agulnik |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T14:58:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-31542d60f40844f3b72fd634e7eec733 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2662-2211 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T14:58:13Z |
| publishDate | 2024-02-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Implementation Science Communications |
| spelling | doaj.art-31542d60f40844f3b72fd634e7eec7332024-03-05T19:16:52ZengBMCImplementation Science Communications2662-22112024-02-015111010.1186/s43058-024-00551-6Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping reviewAsya Agulnik0Derrecka Boykin1Denalee M. O’Malley2Julia Price3Mia Yang4Mark McKone5Geoffrey Curran6Mona J. Ritchie7Department of Global Pediatric Medicine, St. Jude Children’s Research HospitalCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical CenterDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolCenter for Healthcare Delivery Science, Nemours Children’s Health Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine and the Sticht Center for Healthy Aging and Alzheimer’s Prevention, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Atrium Health Wake Forest BaptistCoy C. Carpenter Library, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Atrium Health Wake Forest BaptistDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Arkansas for Medical SciencesVA Behavioral Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare SystemAbstract Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A.https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6Implementation facilitationPractice facilitationVirtual facilitationImplementation strategyScoping review |
| spellingShingle | Asya Agulnik Derrecka Boykin Denalee M. O’Malley Julia Price Mia Yang Mark McKone Geoffrey Curran Mona J. Ritchie Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review Implementation Science Communications Implementation facilitation Practice facilitation Virtual facilitation Implementation strategy Scoping review |
| title | Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
| title_full | Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
| title_fullStr | Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
| title_short | Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
| title_sort | virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities a scoping review |
| topic | Implementation facilitation Practice facilitation Virtual facilitation Implementation strategy Scoping review |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT asyaagulnik virtualfacilitationbestpracticesandresearchprioritiesascopingreview AT derreckaboykin virtualfacilitationbestpracticesandresearchprioritiesascopingreview AT denaleemomalley virtualfacilitationbestpracticesandresearchprioritiesascopingreview AT juliaprice virtualfacilitationbestpracticesandresearchprioritiesascopingreview AT miayang virtualfacilitationbestpracticesandresearchprioritiesascopingreview AT markmckone virtualfacilitationbestpracticesandresearchprioritiesascopingreview AT geoffreycurran virtualfacilitationbestpracticesandresearchprioritiesascopingreview AT monajritchie virtualfacilitationbestpracticesandresearchprioritiesascopingreview |