Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments
Abstract Background Organizational readiness assessments have a history of being developed as important support tools for successful implementation. However, it remains unclear how best to operationalize readiness across varied projects or settings. We conducted a synthesis and content analysis of p...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2020-02-01
|
| Series: | BMC Health Services Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4926-z |
| _version_ | 1818665153244168192 |
|---|---|
| author | Isomi M. Miake-Lye Deborah M. Delevan David A. Ganz Brian S. Mittman Erin P. Finley |
| author_facet | Isomi M. Miake-Lye Deborah M. Delevan David A. Ganz Brian S. Mittman Erin P. Finley |
| author_sort | Isomi M. Miake-Lye |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Organizational readiness assessments have a history of being developed as important support tools for successful implementation. However, it remains unclear how best to operationalize readiness across varied projects or settings. We conducted a synthesis and content analysis of published readiness instruments to compare how investigators have operationalized the concept of organizational readiness for change. Methods We identified readiness assessments using a systematic review and update search. We mapped individual assessment items to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which identifies five domains affecting implementation (outer setting, inner setting, intervention characteristics, characteristics of individuals, and implementation process) and multiple constructs within each domain. Results Of 1370 survey items, 897 (68%) mapped to the CFIR domain of inner setting, most commonly related to constructs of readiness for implementation (n = 220); networks and communication (n = 207); implementation climate (n = 204); structural characteristics (n = 139); and culture (n = 93). Two hundred forty-two items (18%) mapped to characteristics of individuals (mainly other personal attributes [n = 157] and self-efficacy [n = 52]); 80 (6%) mapped to outer setting; 51 (4%) mapped to implementation process; 40 (3%) mapped to intervention characteristics; and 60 (4%) did not map to CFIR constructs. Instruments were typically tailored to specific interventions or contexts. Discussion Available readiness instruments predominantly focus on contextual factors within the organization and characteristics of individuals, but the specificity of most assessment items suggests a need to tailor items to the specific scenario in which an assessment is fielded. Readiness assessments must bridge the gap between measuring a theoretical construct and factors of importance to a particular implementation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-17T05:44:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d52a1d9759494cfab68db2749afa1d16 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6963 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-17T05:44:06Z |
| publishDate | 2020-02-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Health Services Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-d52a1d9759494cfab68db2749afa1d162022-12-21T22:01:21ZengBMCBMC Health Services Research1472-69632020-02-0120111310.1186/s12913-020-4926-zUnpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessmentsIsomi M. Miake-Lye0Deborah M. Delevan1David A. Ganz2Brian S. Mittman3Erin P. Finley4VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemSouth Texas Veterans Health Care SystemAbstract Background Organizational readiness assessments have a history of being developed as important support tools for successful implementation. However, it remains unclear how best to operationalize readiness across varied projects or settings. We conducted a synthesis and content analysis of published readiness instruments to compare how investigators have operationalized the concept of organizational readiness for change. Methods We identified readiness assessments using a systematic review and update search. We mapped individual assessment items to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which identifies five domains affecting implementation (outer setting, inner setting, intervention characteristics, characteristics of individuals, and implementation process) and multiple constructs within each domain. Results Of 1370 survey items, 897 (68%) mapped to the CFIR domain of inner setting, most commonly related to constructs of readiness for implementation (n = 220); networks and communication (n = 207); implementation climate (n = 204); structural characteristics (n = 139); and culture (n = 93). Two hundred forty-two items (18%) mapped to characteristics of individuals (mainly other personal attributes [n = 157] and self-efficacy [n = 52]); 80 (6%) mapped to outer setting; 51 (4%) mapped to implementation process; 40 (3%) mapped to intervention characteristics; and 60 (4%) did not map to CFIR constructs. Instruments were typically tailored to specific interventions or contexts. Discussion Available readiness instruments predominantly focus on contextual factors within the organization and characteristics of individuals, but the specificity of most assessment items suggests a need to tailor items to the specific scenario in which an assessment is fielded. Readiness assessments must bridge the gap between measuring a theoretical construct and factors of importance to a particular implementation.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4926-zSystematic reviewOrganizational readiness for changeContent analysisImplementation researchConsolidated framework for implementation research |
| spellingShingle | Isomi M. Miake-Lye Deborah M. Delevan David A. Ganz Brian S. Mittman Erin P. Finley Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments BMC Health Services Research Systematic review Organizational readiness for change Content analysis Implementation research Consolidated framework for implementation research |
| title | Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments |
| title_full | Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments |
| title_fullStr | Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments |
| title_full_unstemmed | Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments |
| title_short | Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments |
| title_sort | unpacking organizational readiness for change an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments |
| topic | Systematic review Organizational readiness for change Content analysis Implementation research Consolidated framework for implementation research |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4926-z |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT isomimmiakelye unpackingorganizationalreadinessforchangeanupdatedsystematicreviewandcontentanalysisofassessments AT deborahmdelevan unpackingorganizationalreadinessforchangeanupdatedsystematicreviewandcontentanalysisofassessments AT davidaganz unpackingorganizationalreadinessforchangeanupdatedsystematicreviewandcontentanalysisofassessments AT briansmittman unpackingorganizationalreadinessforchangeanupdatedsystematicreviewandcontentanalysisofassessments AT erinpfinley unpackingorganizationalreadinessforchangeanupdatedsystematicreviewandcontentanalysisofassessments |