Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review
Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pand...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Agulnik, Asya [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2024 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2024 |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Implementation science communications - [London] : BMC, 2020, 5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb. |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:5 ; year:2024 ; number:1 ; day:16 ; month:02 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
SPR054805449 |
---|
LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | SPR054805449 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20240217064648.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 240217s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)SPR054805449 | ||
035 | |a (SPR)s43058-024-00551-6-e | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Agulnik, Asya |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0001-8932-8181 |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a © The Author(s) 2024 | ||
520 | |a Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Implementation facilitation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Practice facilitation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Virtual facilitation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Implementation strategy |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Scoping review |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
700 | 1 | |a Boykin, Derrecka |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a O’Malley, Denalee M. |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Price, Julia |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Yang, Mia |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a McKone, Mark |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Curran, Geoffrey |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Ritchie, Mona J. |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Implementation science communications |d [London] : BMC, 2020 |g 5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb. |w (DE-627)1733552987 |w (DE-600)3038166-6 |x 2662-2211 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:5 |g year:2024 |g number:1 |g day:16 |g month:02 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 5 |j 2024 |e 1 |b 16 |c 02 |
author_variant |
a a aa d b db d m o dm dmo j p jp m y my m m mm g c gc m j r mj mjr |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:26622211:2024----::itafclttobspatcsnrsacpir |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2024 |
publishDate |
2024 |
allfields |
10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 doi (DE-627)SPR054805449 (SPR)s43058-024-00551-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Agulnik, Asya verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-8932-8181 aut Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A. Implementation facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Practice facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Virtual facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation strategy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Scoping review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Boykin, Derrecka aut O’Malley, Denalee M. aut Price, Julia aut Yang, Mia aut McKone, Mark aut Curran, Geoffrey aut Ritchie, Mona J. aut Enthalten in Implementation science communications [London] : BMC, 2020 5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb. (DE-627)1733552987 (DE-600)3038166-6 2662-2211 nnns volume:5 year:2024 number:1 day:16 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2024 1 16 02 |
spelling |
10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 doi (DE-627)SPR054805449 (SPR)s43058-024-00551-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Agulnik, Asya verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-8932-8181 aut Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A. Implementation facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Practice facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Virtual facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation strategy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Scoping review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Boykin, Derrecka aut O’Malley, Denalee M. aut Price, Julia aut Yang, Mia aut McKone, Mark aut Curran, Geoffrey aut Ritchie, Mona J. aut Enthalten in Implementation science communications [London] : BMC, 2020 5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb. (DE-627)1733552987 (DE-600)3038166-6 2662-2211 nnns volume:5 year:2024 number:1 day:16 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2024 1 16 02 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 doi (DE-627)SPR054805449 (SPR)s43058-024-00551-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Agulnik, Asya verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-8932-8181 aut Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A. Implementation facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Practice facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Virtual facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation strategy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Scoping review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Boykin, Derrecka aut O’Malley, Denalee M. aut Price, Julia aut Yang, Mia aut McKone, Mark aut Curran, Geoffrey aut Ritchie, Mona J. aut Enthalten in Implementation science communications [London] : BMC, 2020 5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb. (DE-627)1733552987 (DE-600)3038166-6 2662-2211 nnns volume:5 year:2024 number:1 day:16 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2024 1 16 02 |
allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 doi (DE-627)SPR054805449 (SPR)s43058-024-00551-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Agulnik, Asya verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-8932-8181 aut Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A. Implementation facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Practice facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Virtual facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation strategy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Scoping review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Boykin, Derrecka aut O’Malley, Denalee M. aut Price, Julia aut Yang, Mia aut McKone, Mark aut Curran, Geoffrey aut Ritchie, Mona J. aut Enthalten in Implementation science communications [London] : BMC, 2020 5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb. (DE-627)1733552987 (DE-600)3038166-6 2662-2211 nnns volume:5 year:2024 number:1 day:16 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2024 1 16 02 |
allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 doi (DE-627)SPR054805449 (SPR)s43058-024-00551-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Agulnik, Asya verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-8932-8181 aut Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A. Implementation facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Practice facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Virtual facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation strategy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Scoping review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Boykin, Derrecka aut O’Malley, Denalee M. aut Price, Julia aut Yang, Mia aut McKone, Mark aut Curran, Geoffrey aut Ritchie, Mona J. aut Enthalten in Implementation science communications [London] : BMC, 2020 5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb. (DE-627)1733552987 (DE-600)3038166-6 2662-2211 nnns volume:5 year:2024 number:1 day:16 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 5 2024 1 16 02 |
language |
English |
source |
Enthalten in Implementation science communications 5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb. volume:5 year:2024 number:1 day:16 month:02 |
sourceStr |
Enthalten in Implementation science communications 5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb. volume:5 year:2024 number:1 day:16 month:02 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
Implementation facilitation Practice facilitation Virtual facilitation Implementation strategy Scoping review |
isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
container_title |
Implementation science communications |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Agulnik, Asya @@aut@@ Boykin, Derrecka @@aut@@ O’Malley, Denalee M. @@aut@@ Price, Julia @@aut@@ Yang, Mia @@aut@@ McKone, Mark @@aut@@ Curran, Geoffrey @@aut@@ Ritchie, Mona J. @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2024-02-16T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
1733552987 |
id |
SPR054805449 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR054805449</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240217064648.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240217s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR054805449</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s43058-024-00551-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Agulnik, Asya</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-8932-8181</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Implementation facilitation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Practice facilitation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Virtual facilitation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Implementation strategy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Scoping review</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Boykin, Derrecka</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">O’Malley, Denalee M.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Price, Julia</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yang, Mia</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">McKone, Mark</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Curran, Geoffrey</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ritchie, Mona J.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Implementation science communications</subfield><subfield code="d">[London] : BMC, 2020</subfield><subfield code="g">5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1733552987</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)3038166-6</subfield><subfield code="x">2662-2211</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:5</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2024</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:16</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">5</subfield><subfield code="j">2024</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">16</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
author |
Agulnik, Asya |
spellingShingle |
Agulnik, Asya misc Implementation facilitation misc Practice facilitation misc Virtual facilitation misc Implementation strategy misc Scoping review Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
authorStr |
Agulnik, Asya |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1733552987 |
format |
electronic Article |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
collection |
springer |
remote_str |
true |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
2662-2211 |
topic_title |
Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review Implementation facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Practice facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Virtual facilitation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation strategy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Scoping review (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
topic |
misc Implementation facilitation misc Practice facilitation misc Virtual facilitation misc Implementation strategy misc Scoping review |
topic_unstemmed |
misc Implementation facilitation misc Practice facilitation misc Virtual facilitation misc Implementation strategy misc Scoping review |
topic_browse |
misc Implementation facilitation misc Practice facilitation misc Virtual facilitation misc Implementation strategy misc Scoping review |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
Implementation science communications |
hierarchy_parent_id |
1733552987 |
hierarchy_top_title |
Implementation science communications |
isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1733552987 (DE-600)3038166-6 |
title |
Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR054805449 (SPR)s43058-024-00551-6-e |
title_full |
Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
author_sort |
Agulnik, Asya |
journal |
Implementation science communications |
journalStr |
Implementation science communications |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
true |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2024 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
author_browse |
Agulnik, Asya Boykin, Derrecka O’Malley, Denalee M. Price, Julia Yang, Mia McKone, Mark Curran, Geoffrey Ritchie, Mona J. |
container_volume |
5 |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Agulnik, Asya |
doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 |
normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0001-8932-8181 |
normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0001-8932-8181 |
title_sort |
virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
title_auth |
Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
abstract |
Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A. © The Author(s) 2024 |
abstractGer |
Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A. © The Author(s) 2024 |
abstract_unstemmed |
Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A. © The Author(s) 2024 |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
container_issue |
1 |
title_short |
Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review |
url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Boykin, Derrecka O’Malley, Denalee M. Price, Julia Yang, Mia McKone, Mark Curran, Geoffrey Ritchie, Mona J. |
author2Str |
Boykin, Derrecka O’Malley, Denalee M. Price, Julia Yang, Mia McKone, Mark Curran, Geoffrey Ritchie, Mona J. |
ppnlink |
1733552987 |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
true |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6 |
up_date |
2024-07-04T03:05:09.197Z |
_version_ |
1803616055923310592 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR054805449</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240217064648.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240217s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR054805449</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s43058-024-00551-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Agulnik, Asya</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-8932-8181</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Virtual facilitation best practices and research priorities: a scoping review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Facilitation is an implementation strategy that supports the uptake of evidence-based practices. Recently, use of virtual facilitation (VF), or the application of facilitation using primarily video-based conferencing technologies, has become more common, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorough assessment of the literature on VF, however, is lacking. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe conceptual definitions of VF, evaluate the consistency of terminology, and recommend “best” practices for its use as an implementation strategy. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify literature on VF following the PRISMA-ScR guidance. A search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases was conducted in June 2022 for English language articles published from January 2012 through May 2022 and repeated in May 2023 for articles published from January 2012 through April 2023. Identified articles, including studies and conference abstracts describing VF, were uploaded into Covidence and screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was done by two reviewers in Microsoft Excel; additionally, studies were evaluated based on the Proctor et al. (2013) reporting guidelines for specifying details of implementation strategies. Results The search strategy identified 19 articles. After abstract and full-text screening, eight studies described by 10 articles/abstracts were included in analysis. Best practices summarized across studies included (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) understanding the recipient’s organization, (3) facilitator training, (4) piloting, (5) evaluating facilitation, (6) use of group facilitation to encourage learning, and (7) integrating novel tools for virtual interaction. Three papers reported all or nearly all components of the Proctor et al. reporting guidelines; justification for use of VF was the most frequently omitted. Conclusions This scoping review evaluated available literature on use of VF as a primary implementation strategy and identified significant variability on how VF is reported, including inconsistent terminology, lack of details about how and why it was conducted, and limited adherence to published reporting guidelines. These inconsistencies impact generalizability of these methods by preventing replicability and full understanding of this emerging methodology. More work is needed to develop and evaluate best practices for effective VF to promote uptake of evidence-based interventions. Trial registration N/A.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Implementation facilitation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Practice facilitation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Virtual facilitation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Implementation strategy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Scoping review</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Boykin, Derrecka</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">O’Malley, Denalee M.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Price, Julia</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yang, Mia</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">McKone, Mark</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Curran, Geoffrey</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ritchie, Mona J.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Implementation science communications</subfield><subfield code="d">[London] : BMC, 2020</subfield><subfield code="g">5(2024), 1 vom: 16. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1733552987</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)3038166-6</subfield><subfield code="x">2662-2211</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:5</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2024</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:16</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00551-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">5</subfield><subfield code="j">2024</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">16</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.4012194 |