liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Community Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences.
Reg Vastra Gotaland, Sweden; Univ Gothenburg, Sweden.
2019 (English)In: BMC Health Services Research, ISSN 1472-6963, E-ISSN 1472-6963, Vol. 19, article id 189Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BackgroundThe relevance of context in implementation science is reflected in the numerous theories, frameworks, models and taxonomies that have been proposed to analyse determinants of implementation (in this paper referred to as determinant frameworks). This scoping review aimed to investigate and map how determinant frameworks used in implementation science were developed, what terms are used for contextual determinants for implementation, how the context is conceptualized, and which context dimensions that can be discerned.MethodsA scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to October 2017, and supplemented with implementation science text books and known published overviews. Publications in English that described a determinant framework (theory, model, taxonomy or checklist), of which context was one determinant, were eligible. Screening and inclusion were done in duplicate. Extracted data were analysed to address the study aims. A qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach was carried out concerning the development and core context dimensions of the frameworks. The review is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsThe database searches yielded a total of 1113 publications, of which 67 were considered potentially relevant based on the predetermined eligibility criteria, and retrieved in full text. Seventeen unique determinant frameworks were identified and included. Most were developed based on the literature and/or the developers implementation experiences. Six of the frameworks explicitly referred to context, but only four frameworks provided a specific definition of the concept. Instead, context was defined indirectly by description of various categories and sub-categories that together made up the context. Twelve context dimensions were identified, pertaining to different aggregation levels. The most widely addressed context dimensions were organizational support, financial resources, social relations and support, and leadership.ConclusionsThe findings suggest variation with regard to how the frameworks were developed and considerable inconsistency in terms used for contextual determinants, how context is conceptualized, and which contextual determinants are accounted for in frameworks used in implementation science. Common context dimensions were identified, which can facilitate research that incorporates a theory of context, i.e. assumptions about how different dimensions may influence each other and affect implementation outcomes. A thoughtful application of the concept and a more consistent terminology would enhance transparency, simplify communication among researchers, and facilitate comparison across studies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMC , 2019. Vol. 19, article id 189
Keywords [en]
Context; Determinants; Barriers; Frameworks; Implementation
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-156392DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3ISI: 000462709700001PubMedID: 30909897OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-156392DiVA, id: diva2:1305722
Available from: 2019-04-18 Created: 2019-04-18 Last updated: 2019-10-22

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(914 kB)14 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 914 kBChecksum SHA-512
2a5e08d544b81591a61fb20135abdb08cefabd30457270d16e4a2234ac81ca0ec25f7aaf51a21442752adfa13cfcce1a673216d6350e26ea8ae00c1d606e9650
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nilsen, Per
By organisation
Division of Community MedicineFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
In the same journal
BMC Health Services Research
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 14 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 133 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf