Suppr超能文献

为丹麦的 WALK-Cph 干预措施制定实施策略,旨在提高急性住院老年患者的活动能力:对选定策略及其依据的定性分析。

Co-designing implementation strategies for the WALK-Cph intervention in Denmark aimed at increasing mobility in acutely hospitalized older patients: a qualitative analysis of selected strategies and their justifications.

机构信息

Department of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.

Department of Public Health, Nursing, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Jan 2;22(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07395-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Selecting appropriate strategies to target barriers to implementing interventions represents a considerable challenge in implementation research and practice. The aim was to investigate what categories of implementation strategies were selected by health care practitioners and their managers in a co-design process and how they justified these strategies aimed at facilitating the implementation of the WALK-Cph intervention.

METHODS

The study used a qualitative research design to explore what implementation strategies were selected and the justifications for selecting these strategies. Workshops were used because this qualitative method is particularly well suited for studying co-design processes that involve substantial attention to social interaction and the context. Data were 1) analyzed deductively based on the Proctor et al. taxonomy of implementation strategies, 2) categorized in accordance with the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies by Powell et al., and 3) analyzed to examine the justification for the selected strategies by the Proctor et al. framework for justifications of implementation strategies.

RESULTS

Thirteen different types of implementation strategies were chosen across two hospitals. The deductive analysis showed that selection of implementation strategies was based on pragmatic and theoretical justifications. The contents of the two types of justifications were thematized into nine subthemes.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes with knowledge about categories and justification of implementation strategies selected in a co-design process. In this study, implementation strategies were selected through pragmatic and theoretical justifications. This points to a challenge in balancing strategies based on practice-based and research-based knowledge and thereby selection of strategies with or without proven effectiveness.

摘要

背景

在实施研究和实践中,选择针对干预实施障碍的适当策略是一项重大挑战。本研究旨在调查医疗保健从业者及其管理者在共同设计过程中选择了哪些类别的实施策略,以及他们如何为旨在促进 WALK-Cph 干预实施的这些策略提供依据。

方法

本研究采用定性研究设计,以探讨选择了哪些实施策略以及选择这些策略的依据。使用工作坊是因为这种定性方法特别适合研究涉及大量社会互动和背景关注的共同设计过程。数据来自 2 家医院:1)根据 Proctor 等人的实施策略分类学进行演绎分析;2)根据 Powell 等人的 ERIC 实施策略汇编进行分类;3)根据 Proctor 等人的实施策略依据框架进行分析,以检验所选策略的依据。

结果

在 2 家医院共选择了 13 种不同类型的实施策略。演绎分析表明,实施策略的选择基于实用和理论依据。这两种依据的内容被主题化为 9 个次主题。

结论

本研究为共同设计过程中选择的实施策略类别和依据提供了知识。在本研究中,实施策略是通过实用和理论依据来选择的。这表明在基于实践和基于研究的知识之间平衡策略以及选择具有或不具有已证明有效性的策略存在挑战。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d833/8722331/b280a9d9e1fa/12913_2021_7395_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验