A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is growing interest in the use of cognitive, behavioural, and organisational theories in implementation research. However, the extent of use of theory in implementation research is uncertain.</p> <p>Methods</p>...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2010-02-01
|
| Series: | Implementation Science |
| Online Access: | http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/14 |
| _version_ | 1818229259191189504 |
|---|---|
| author | Grimshaw Jeremy M Walker Anne E Davies Philippa |
| author_facet | Grimshaw Jeremy M Walker Anne E Davies Philippa |
| author_sort | Grimshaw Jeremy M |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is growing interest in the use of cognitive, behavioural, and organisational theories in implementation research. However, the extent of use of theory in implementation research is uncertain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic review of use of theory in 235 rigorous evaluations of guideline dissemination and implementation studies published between 1966 and 1998. Use of theory was classified according to type of use (explicitly theory based, some conceptual basis, and theoretical construct used) and stage of use (choice/design of intervention, process/mediators/moderators, and post hoc/explanation).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty-three of 235 studies (22.5%) were judged to have employed theories, including 14 studies that explicitly used theory. The majority of studies (n = 42) used only one theory; the maximum number of theories employed by any study was three. Twenty-five different theories were used. A small number of theories accounted for the majority of theory use including PRECEDE (Predisposing, Reinforcing, and Enabling Constructs in Educational Diagnosis and Evaluation), diffusion of innovations, information overload and social marketing (academic detailing).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There was poor justification of choice of intervention and use of theory in implementation research in the identified studies until at least 1998. Future research should explicitly identify the justification for the interventions. Greater use of explicit theory to understand barriers, design interventions, and explore mediating pathways and moderators is needed to advance the science of implementation research.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T10:15:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-57c6b13ce3de4c54b46b722adb48a0ef |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-5908 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T10:15:45Z |
| publishDate | 2010-02-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Implementation Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-57c6b13ce3de4c54b46b722adb48a0ef2022-12-22T00:27:41ZengBMCImplementation Science1748-59082010-02-01511410.1186/1748-5908-5-14A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluationsGrimshaw Jeremy MWalker Anne EDavies Philippa<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is growing interest in the use of cognitive, behavioural, and organisational theories in implementation research. However, the extent of use of theory in implementation research is uncertain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic review of use of theory in 235 rigorous evaluations of guideline dissemination and implementation studies published between 1966 and 1998. Use of theory was classified according to type of use (explicitly theory based, some conceptual basis, and theoretical construct used) and stage of use (choice/design of intervention, process/mediators/moderators, and post hoc/explanation).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty-three of 235 studies (22.5%) were judged to have employed theories, including 14 studies that explicitly used theory. The majority of studies (n = 42) used only one theory; the maximum number of theories employed by any study was three. Twenty-five different theories were used. A small number of theories accounted for the majority of theory use including PRECEDE (Predisposing, Reinforcing, and Enabling Constructs in Educational Diagnosis and Evaluation), diffusion of innovations, information overload and social marketing (academic detailing).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There was poor justification of choice of intervention and use of theory in implementation research in the identified studies until at least 1998. Future research should explicitly identify the justification for the interventions. Greater use of explicit theory to understand barriers, design interventions, and explore mediating pathways and moderators is needed to advance the science of implementation research.</p>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/14 |
| spellingShingle | Grimshaw Jeremy M Walker Anne E Davies Philippa A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations Implementation Science |
| title | A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations |
| title_full | A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations |
| title_fullStr | A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations |
| title_full_unstemmed | A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations |
| title_short | A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations |
| title_sort | systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations |
| url | http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/14 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT grimshawjeremym asystematicreviewoftheuseoftheoryinthedesignofguidelinedisseminationandimplementationstrategiesandinterpretationoftheresultsofrigorousevaluations AT walkerannee asystematicreviewoftheuseoftheoryinthedesignofguidelinedisseminationandimplementationstrategiesandinterpretationoftheresultsofrigorousevaluations AT daviesphilippa asystematicreviewoftheuseoftheoryinthedesignofguidelinedisseminationandimplementationstrategiesandinterpretationoftheresultsofrigorousevaluations AT grimshawjeremym systematicreviewoftheuseoftheoryinthedesignofguidelinedisseminationandimplementationstrategiesandinterpretationoftheresultsofrigorousevaluations AT walkerannee systematicreviewoftheuseoftheoryinthedesignofguidelinedisseminationandimplementationstrategiesandinterpretationoftheresultsofrigorousevaluations AT daviesphilippa systematicreviewoftheuseoftheoryinthedesignofguidelinedisseminationandimplementationstrategiesandinterpretationoftheresultsofrigorousevaluations |