Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1103E McGavran-Greenberg, 135 Dauer Drive, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7411, USA.
UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA.
Implement Sci. 2018 Nov 22;13(1):143. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0836-4.
Theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) are foundational for generalizing implementation efforts and research findings. However, TMF and the criteria used to select them are not often described in published articles, perhaps due in part to the challenge of selecting from among the many TMF that exist in the field. The objective of this international study was to develop a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide their implementation projects.
Implementation scientists across the USA, the UK, and Canada identified and rated conceptually distinct categories of criteria in a concept mapping exercise. We then used the concept mapping results to develop a tool to help users select appropriate TMF for their projects. We assessed the tool's usefulness through expert consensus and cognitive and semi-structured interviews with implementation scientists.
Thirty-seven implementation scientists (19 researchers and 18 practitioners) identified four criteria domains: usability, testability, applicability, and familiarity. We then developed a prototype of the tool that included a list of 25 criteria organized by domain, definitions of the criteria, and a case example illustrating an application of the tool. Results of cognitive and semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for the tool to (1) be as succinct as possible; (2) have separate versions to meet the unique needs of researchers versus practitioners; (3) include easily understood terms; (4) include an introduction that clearly describes the tool's purpose and benefits; (5) provide space for noting project information, comparing and scoring TMF, and accommodating contributions from multiple team members; and (6) include more case examples illustrating its application. Interview participants agreed that the tool (1) offered them a way to select from among candidate TMF, (2) helped them be explicit about the criteria that they used to select a TMF, and (3) enabled them to compare, select from among, and/or consider the usefulness of combining multiple TMF. These revisions resulted in the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST), a paper and web-enabled tool that includes 16 specific criteria that can be used to consider and justify the selection of TMF for a given project. Criteria are organized within four categories: applicability, usability, testability, and acceptability.
T-CaST is a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide implementation projects. Additionally, T-CaST has the potential to promote transparent reporting of criteria used to select TMF within and beyond the field of implementation science.
理论、模型和框架（TMF）是推广实施工作和研究结果的基础。然而，TMF 及其选择标准在已发表的文章中并未经常描述，部分原因可能是由于难以从众多存在于该领域的 TMF 中进行选择。本国际研究的目的是开发一个用户友好的工具，帮助科学家和从业者选择合适的 TMF 来指导他们的实施项目。
来自美国、英国和加拿大的实施科学家在概念映射练习中确定并评估了概念上不同的标准类别。然后，我们使用概念映射结果开发了一个工具，帮助用户为其项目选择合适的 TMF。我们通过专家共识和与实施科学家的认知和半结构化访谈来评估工具的有用性。
37 名实施科学家（19 名研究人员和 18 名从业者）确定了四个标准领域：可用性、可测试性、适用性和熟悉度。然后，我们开发了一个工具原型，其中包括按领域组织的 25 个标准列表、标准定义以及一个案例示例，说明了该工具的应用。认知和半结构化访谈的结果强调了该工具需要（1）尽可能简洁；（2）有针对研究人员和从业者的独特需求的单独版本；（3）使用易于理解的术语；（4）包括一个清楚描述工具目的和好处的介绍；（5）提供用于记录项目信息、比较和评分 TMF 以及容纳多个团队成员贡献的空间；以及（6）包括更多说明其应用的案例示例。访谈参与者一致认为，该工具（1）为他们提供了一种从候选 TMF 中进行选择的方法；（2）帮助他们明确选择 TMF 所使用的标准；（3）使他们能够比较、选择和/或考虑组合使用多个 TMF 的有用性。这些修订导致了理论比较和选择工具（T-CaST）的产生，这是一个纸质和网络工具，其中包括 16 个特定标准，可以用于考虑和证明给定项目中 TMF 的选择。标准分为四个类别：适用性、可用性、可测试性和可接受性。
T-CaST 是一个用户友好的工具，可帮助科学家和从业者选择合适的 TMF 来指导实施项目。此外，T-CaST 有可能促进在实施科学领域内外透明报告选择 TMF 所使用的标准。
Zotero 插件
