Macgregor Aisha, McCormack Brendan, Spilsbury Karen, Hockley Jo, Rutherford Alasdair, Ogden Margaret, Soulsby Irene, McKenzie Maisie, Hanratty Barbara, Forbat Liz
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland.
Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Front Health Serv. 2023 Jan 9;2:1019602. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2022.1019602. eCollection 2022.
Realist evaluation aims to address the knowledge to practice gap by explaining how an intervention is expected to work, as well as what is likely to impact upon the success of its implementation, by developing programme theories that link contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Co-production approaches to the development of programme theories offer substantial benefits in addressing power relations, including and valuing different types of knowledge, and promoting buy-in from stakeholders while navigating the complex social systems in which innovations are embedded. This paper describes the co-production of an initial programme theory of how an evidence based intervention developed in Australia - called 'Palliative Care Needs Rounds' - might work in England and Scotland to support care home residents approaching their end of life.
Using realist evaluation and iPARIHS (integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) we sought to determine how contexts and mechanisms of change might shape implementation outcomes. Pre-intervention online interviews ( = 28) were conducted (February-April 2021), followed by four co-design online workshops with 43 participants (April-June 2021). The online interviews and workshops included a range of stakeholders, including care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, paramedics, general practitioners, and relatives of people living in care homes.
This methodology paper reports developments in realist evaluation and co-production methodologies, and how they were used to develop context, mechanisms, outcomes (CMOs) configurations, and chains of inference. The initial (pre-intervention) programme theory is used to illustrate this process. Two developments to iPARIHS are described. First, involving stakeholders in the collaborative co-design workshops created opportunities to commence facilitation. Second, we describe developing iPARIHS' component, to include novel stakeholder interpretations, perceptions and anticipated use of the intervention as they participated in workshop discussions.
This rapid and robust co-production methodology draws on interactive collaborative research practices (interviews, workshop discussions of data, illustrative vignettes and visual methods). These innovative and engaging methods can be packaged for online processes to develop, describe and interrogate the CMOs in order to co-produce a programme theory. These approaches also commence facilitation and innovation, and can be adopted in other implementation science and realist studies.
现实主义评价旨在通过构建将背景、机制和结果联系起来的项目理论,来解释一项干预措施预期如何发挥作用以及哪些因素可能影响其实施的成功,从而弥合知识与实践之间的差距。项目理论发展中的共同生产方法在解决权力关系方面具有显著优势,包括重视不同类型的知识、促进利益相关者的认同,同时应对创新所嵌入的复杂社会系统。本文描述了一个初始项目理论的共同生产过程,该理论阐述了澳大利亚开发的一项循证干预措施——“姑息治疗需求轮值”——在英格兰和苏格兰如何发挥作用,以支持临终护理院居民。
我们运用现实主义评价和iPARIHS(卫生服务研究实施促进综合框架)来确定背景和变革机制如何影响实施结果。在干预前进行了在线访谈(n = 28,2021年2月至4月),随后与43名参与者开展了四次联合设计在线研讨会(2021年4月至6月)。在线访谈和研讨会涵盖了一系列利益相关者,包括护理院工作人员、专科姑息治疗人员、护理人员、全科医生以及护理院居民的亲属。
本方法学论文报告了现实主义评价和共同生产方法学的进展,以及它们如何用于构建背景、机制、结果(CMO)配置和推理链。初始(干预前)项目理论用于说明这一过程。文中描述了对iPARIHS的两项改进。第一,让利益相关者参与联合设计研讨会,为开展促进工作创造了机会。第二,我们描述了对iPARIHS组件的拓展,将利益相关者在参与研讨会讨论时对干预措施的新颖解读、看法和预期用途纳入其中。
这种快速且稳健的共同生产方法借鉴了交互式协作研究实践(访谈、数据研讨会讨论、示例 vignettes 和可视化方法)。这些创新且引人入胜的方法可用于在线流程,以构建、描述和审视CMO,从而共同生产一个项目理论。这些方法还开启了促进和创新,可应用于其他实施科学和现实主义研究。