de Brún Tomas, O'Reilly-de Brún Mary, O'Donnell Catherine A, MacFarlane Anne
Discipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Aug 3;16(a):346. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1587-z.
The implementation of research findings is not a straightforward matter. There are substantive and recognised gaps in the process of translating research findings into practice and policy. In order to overcome some of these translational difficulties, a number of strategies have been proposed for researchers. These include greater use of theoretical approaches in research focused on implementation, and use of a wider range of research methods appropriate to policy questions and the wider social context in which they are placed. However, questions remain about how to combine theory and method in implementation research. In this paper, we respond to these proposals.
Focussing on a contemporary social theory, Normalisation Process Theory, and a participatory research methodology, Participatory Learning and Action, we discuss the potential of their combined use for implementation research. We note ways in which Normalisation Process Theory and Participatory Learning and Action are congruent and may therefore be used as heuristic devices to explore, better understand and support implementation. We also provide examples of their use in our own research programme about community involvement in primary healthcare.
Normalisation Process Theory alone has, to date, offered useful explanations for the success or otherwise of implementation projects post-implementation. We argue that Normalisation Process Theory can also be used to prospectively support implementation journeys. Furthermore, Normalisation Process Theory and Participatory Learning and Action can be used together so that interventions to support implementation work are devised and enacted with the expertise of key stakeholders. We propose that the specific combination of this theory and methodology possesses the potential, because of their combined heuristic force, to offer a more effective means of supporting implementation projects than either one might do on its own, and of providing deeper understandings of implementation contexts, rather than merely describing change.
研究结果的实施并非易事。在将研究结果转化为实践和政策的过程中,存在着实质性的、公认的差距。为了克服其中一些转化困难,已为研究人员提出了一些策略。这些策略包括在专注于实施的研究中更多地使用理论方法,以及使用更广泛的适合政策问题及其所处更广泛社会背景的研究方法。然而,关于如何在实施研究中结合理论和方法的问题仍然存在。在本文中,我们对这些提议做出回应。
以当代社会理论——规范化过程理论和参与式研究方法——参与式学习与行动为重点,我们讨论了将它们结合用于实施研究的潜力。我们指出了规范化过程理论和参与式学习与行动相一致的方式,因此可以将它们用作启发式工具来探索、更好地理解和支持实施。我们还提供了它们在我们自己关于社区参与初级医疗保健的研究项目中的使用示例。
迄今为止,仅规范化过程理论就为实施项目实施后的成功与否提供了有用的解释。我们认为,规范化过程理论也可用于前瞻性地支持实施过程。此外,规范化过程理论和参与式学习与行动可以一起使用,以便在关键利益相关者的专业知识的基础上设计和实施支持实施工作的干预措施。我们提出,由于它们的启发式力量相结合,这种理论和方法的特定组合有可能提供一种比单独使用任何一种更有效的支持实施项目的手段,并能更深入地理解实施背景,而不仅仅是描述变化。