Methodological approaches to study context in intervention implementation studies: an evidence gap map

Background Within implementation science studies, contextual analysis is increasingly recognized as foundational to interventions' successful and sustainable implementation. However, inconsistencies between methodological approaches currently limit progress in studying context and guidance to s...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Background Within implementation science studies, contextual analysis is increasingly recognized as foundational to interventions' successful and sustainable implementation. However, inconsistencies between methodological approaches currently limit progress in studying context and guidance to standardize the use of those approaches is scant. Therefore, this study's objective was to systematically review and map current methodological approaches to contextual analysis in intervention implementation studies. The results would help us both to systematize the process of contextual analysis and identify gaps in the current evidence. Methods We conducted an evidence gap map (EGM) based on literature data via a stepwise approach. First, using an empirically developed search string, we randomly sampled 20% of all intervention implementation studies available from PubMed per year (2015–2020). Second, we assessed included studies that conducted a contextual analysis. Data extraction and evaluation followed the Basel Approach for CoNtextual ANAlysis (BANANA), using a color-coded rating scheme. Also based on BANANA and on the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework–an implementation framework that pays ample attention to context– we created visual maps of various approaches to contextual analysis. Results Of 15, 286 identified intervention implementation studies and study protocols, 3017 were screened for inclusion. Of those, 110 warranted close examination, revealing 22% that reported on contextual analysis. Only one study explicitly applied a framework for contextual analysis. Data were most commonly collected via surveys (n = 15) and individual interviews (n = 13). Ten studies reported mixed-methods analyses. Twenty-two assessed meso-level contextual and setting factors, with socio-cultural aspects most commonly studied. Eighteen described the use of contextual information for subsequent project phases (e.g., intervention development/adaption, selecting implementation strategies). Nine reported contextual factors' influences on implementation and/or effectiveness outcomes. Conclusions This study describes current approaches to contextual analysis in implementation science and provides a novel framework for evaluating and mapping it. By synthesizing our findings graphically in figures, we provide an initial evidence base framework that can incorporate new findings as necessary. We strongly recommend further development of methodological approaches both to conduct contextual analysis and to systematize the reporting of it. These actions will increase the quality and consistency of implementation science research. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Autor*in:	Mielke, Juliane [verfasserIn] Brunkert, Thekla Zúñiga, Franziska Simon, Michael Zullig, Leah L. De Geest, Sabina

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Implementation science Contextual analysis Dissemination Evidence gap map

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2022

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC medical research methodology - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 22(2022), 1 vom: 14. Dez.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:22 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; day:14 ; month:12

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12874-022-01772-w

Katalog-ID:	SPR051234262