Balayah Zuhur, Stavropoulou Charitini, Scarbrough Harry, Nigam Amit, Ziemann Alexandra
Centre for Healthcare Innovation Research (CHIR), City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Faculty of Management, Bayes Business School, City St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Front Health Serv. 2025 May 22;5:1373429. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2025.1373429. eCollection 2025.
The implementation of innovations in practice is challenging and often produces disappointing outcomes. Although the reasons for this are multifaceted, part of the challenge derives from the lack of consensus on how such implementation outcomes should be conceptualized and measured. In this review, we used a meta-ethnographic approach to enhance our theoretical conceptualization of implementation outcomes. By situating such outcomes within the overall process of implementation, we were able to unpack them analytically as the product of two major components, which we term "modes" and "attributes," respectively. Modes comprise engagement, active implementation, and integration to foreground focal implementation outcomes. The attributes associated with the modes comprise implementation depth, implementation breadth, implementation pace, implementation adaptation, and de-implementation to indicate the features of the modes of implementation outcomes. Taken together, our analysis based on modes and attributes provides an integrated framework of implementation outcomes. The proposed framework enhances our understanding of the way in which implementation outcomes have been conceptualized in previous literature, enabling us to clarify the relations and distinctions between them in terms of translatability and complementarity. The proposed framework thus extends the conceptualization of implementation outcomes to better align with the complex reality of implementation practice, offering useful insights to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.
在实践中实施创新具有挑战性,而且往往会产生令人失望的结果。尽管原因是多方面的,但部分挑战源于对于如何概念化和衡量此类实施结果缺乏共识。在本综述中,我们采用了元民族志方法来加强我们对实施结果的理论概念化。通过将这些结果置于实施的整体过程中,我们能够从分析上将它们拆解为两个主要组成部分的产物,我们分别将其称为“模式”和“属性”。模式包括参与、积极实施和整合,以突出重点实施结果。与模式相关的属性包括实施深度、实施广度、实施速度、实施适应性和去实施,以表明实施结果模式的特征。总体而言,我们基于模式和属性的分析提供了一个实施结果的综合框架。所提出的框架增强了我们对以往文献中实施结果概念化方式的理解,使我们能够在可翻译性和互补性方面阐明它们之间的关系和区别。因此,所提出的框架扩展了实施结果的概念化,以更好地与实施实践的复杂现实相契合,为研究人员、从业者和政策制定者提供了有益的见解。