Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1105C McGavran-Greenberg Hall, 135 Dauer Drive, Campus Box 7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Implement Sci. 2017 Oct 3;12(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0649-x.
Advancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpose of this study was to establish a stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the domains that comprise the pragmatic measure construct. It built upon a systematic review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews that generated 47 criteria for pragmatic measures, and aimed to further refine that set of criteria by identifying conceptually distinct categories of the pragmatic measure construct and providing quantitative ratings of the criteria's clarity and importance.
Twenty-four stakeholders with expertise in implementation practice completed a concept mapping activity wherein they organized the initial list of 47 criteria into conceptually distinct categories and rated their clarity and importance. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.
The 47 criteria were meaningfully grouped into four distinct categories: (1) acceptable, (2) compatible, (3) easy, and (4) useful. Average ratings of clarity and importance at the category and individual criteria level will be presented.
This study advances the field of implementation science and practice by providing clear and conceptually distinct domains of the pragmatic measure construct. Next steps will include a Delphi process to develop consensus on the most important criteria and the development of quantifiable pragmatic rating criteria that can be used to assess measures.
推进实施研究和实践需要有效的和可靠的实施决定因素、机制、过程、策略和结果的衡量标准。然而,如果研究人员和实施利益相关者认为衡量标准不实用,他们就不太可能使用这些衡量标准。本研究的目的是建立一个由利益相关者驱动的概念化框架,以构成实用衡量标准的结构。它建立在对文献的系统回顾和半结构化利益相关者访谈的基础上,这些访谈产生了 47 条实用衡量标准的标准,并旨在通过确定实用衡量标准结构的概念上不同的类别,并对标准的清晰度和重要性进行定量评分,进一步完善该标准集。
24 名具有实施实践专业知识的利益相关者完成了概念映射活动,他们将最初的 47 条标准组织成概念上不同的类别,并对其清晰度和重要性进行了评分。多维尺度分析、层次聚类分析和描述性统计用于分析数据。
47 条标准被有意义地分为四个不同的类别:(1)可接受的,(2)兼容的,(3)简单的,和(4)有用的。将呈现类别和个别标准的清晰度和重要性的平均评分。
本研究通过提供实用衡量标准结构的清晰和概念上不同的领域,推进了实施科学和实践领域。下一步将包括德尔菲法,以就最重要的标准达成共识,并制定可用于评估措施的量化实用评分标准。