Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 26;13(12):e0209826. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209826. eCollection 2018.
Health care innovations tailored to stakeholder context are more readily adopted. This study aimed to describe how Intervention Mapping (IM) was used to design health care innovations and how stakeholders were involved.
A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Science Citation Index were searched from 2008 to November 2017. English language studies that used or cited Intervention Mapping were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in triplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics, IM steps employed, and stakeholder involvement.
A total of 852 studies were identified, 449 were unique, and 333 were excluded based on title and abstracts, 116 full-text articles were considered and 61 articles representing 60 studies from 13 countries for a variety of clinical issues were included. The number of studies published per year increased since 2008 and doubled in 2016 and 2017. The majority of studies employed multiple research methods (76.7%) and all 6 IM steps (73.3%). Resulting programs/interventions were single (55.4%) or multifaceted (46.4%), and 60.7% were pilot-tested. Programs or interventions were largely educational material or meetings, and were targeted to patients (70.2%), clinicians (14.0%) or both (15.8%). Studies provided few details about current or planned evaluation. Of the 4 (9.3%) studies that reported impact or outcomes, 3 achieved positive improvements in patient or professional behaviour or patient outcomes. Many studies (28.3%) did not involve stakeholders. Those that did (71.7%) often involved a combination of patients, clinicians, and community organizations. However, less than half (48.8%) described how they were engaged. Most often stakeholders were committee members and provide feedback on program or intervention content or format.
It is unclear if use of IM or stakeholder engagement in IM consistently results in effective programs or interventions. Those employing IM should report how stakeholders were involved in each IM step and how involvement influenced program or intervention design. They should also report the details or absence of planned evaluation. Future research should investigate how to optimize stakeholder engagement in IM, and whether use of IM itself or stakeholder engagement in IM are positively associated with effective programs or interventions.
针对利益相关者背景定制的医疗创新更容易被采用。本研究旨在描述如何使用干预映射(IM)设计医疗创新以及如何让利益相关者参与进来。
进行了范围综述。从 2008 年到 2017 年 11 月,检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane 图书馆、Scopus 和科学引文索引。使用或引用干预映射的英文研究符合条件。重复进行了筛选和数据提取。使用摘要统计数据来描述研究特征、使用的 IM 步骤和利益相关者的参与情况。
共确定了 852 项研究,449 项为唯一研究,根据标题和摘要排除了 333 项,考虑了 116 篇全文文章,最终纳入了来自 13 个国家的 60 项研究的 61 篇文章,涉及各种临床问题。自 2008 年以来,每年发表的研究数量逐年增加,2016 年和 2017 年增加了一倍。大多数研究采用了多种研究方法(76.7%)和所有 6 个 IM 步骤(73.3%)。由此产生的方案/干预措施是单一的(55.4%)或多方面的(46.4%),其中 60.7%是试点测试。方案或干预措施主要是教育材料或会议,针对患者(70.2%)、临床医生(14.0%)或两者(15.8%)。研究很少提供关于当前或计划评估的详细信息。在报告影响或结果的 4(9.3%)项研究中,有 3 项在患者或专业行为或患者结果方面取得了积极改善。许多研究(28.3%)没有涉及利益相关者。那些涉及的研究(71.7%)通常涉及患者、临床医生和社区组织的组合。然而,不到一半(48.8%)描述了他们是如何参与的。利益相关者通常是委员会成员,并提供有关计划或干预内容或格式的反馈。
尚不清楚使用 IM 或利益相关者参与 IM 是否会始终导致有效的方案或干预措施。使用 IM 的人应该报告利益相关者如何参与每个 IM 步骤,以及参与如何影响方案或干预设计。他们还应该报告计划评估的详细信息或缺乏计划评估的情况。未来的研究应探讨如何优化利益相关者在 IM 中的参与,以及使用 IM 本身或利益相关者在 IM 中的参与是否与有效的方案或干预措施呈正相关。