首页> 外文期刊>Implementation Science >Standardizing an approach to the evaluation of implementation science proposals
【24h】

Standardizing an approach to the evaluation of implementation science proposals

机译:标准化实施科学建议评估的方法

获取原文
       

摘要

The fields of implementation and improvement sciences have experienced rapid growth in recent years. However, research that seeks to inform health care change may have difficulty translating core components of implementation and improvement sciences within the traditional paradigms used to evaluate efficacy and effectiveness research. A review of implementation and improvement sciences grant proposals within an academic medical center using a traditional National Institutes of Health framework highlighted the need for tools that could assist investigators and reviewers in describing and evaluating proposed implementation and improvement sciences research. We operationalized existing recommendations for writing implementation science proposals as the ImplemeNtation and Improvement Science Proposals Evaluation CriTeria (INSPECT) scoring system. The resulting system was applied to pilot grants submitted to a call for implementation and improvement science proposals at an academic medical center. We evaluated the reliability of the INSPECT system using Krippendorff's alpha coefficients and explored the utility of the INSPECT system to characterize common deficiencies in implementation research proposals. We scored 30 research proposals using the INSPECT system. Proposals received a median cumulative score of 7 out of a possible score of 30. Across individual elements of INSPECT, proposals scored highest for criteria rating evidence of a care or quality gap. Proposals generally performed poorly on all other criteria. Most proposals received scores of 0 for criteria identifying an evidence-based practice or treatment (50%), conceptual model and theoretical justification (70%), setting's readiness to adopt new services/treatment/programs (54%), implementation strategy/process (67%), and measurement and analysis (70%). Inter-coder reliability testing showed excellent reliability (Krippendorff's alpha coefficient 0.88) for the application of the scoring system overall and demonstrated reliability scores ranging from 0.77 to 0.99 for individual elements. The INSPECT scoring system presents a new scoring criteria with a high degree of inter-rater reliability and utility for evaluating the quality of implementation and improvement sciences grant proposals.
机译:近年来,实施和改善科学领域经历了快速增长。然而,寻求通知医疗保健的研究可能难以翻译在传统范式中的实施和改进科学的核心组件,用于评估疗效和有效性研究。使用传统的国家卫生框架审查实施和改进科学授予提案,突出了有必要协助调查人员和审查员在描述和评估拟议实施和改进科学研究方面的工具。我们运营为将实施​​科学建议作为实施和改进科学建议评估标准(ICSPED)评分系统的批准提供了向撰写实施科学建议的现有建议。由此产生的制度应用于提交的试点拨款,提交给学术医疗中心的实施和改进科学提案。我们评估了使用Krippendorff的Alpha系数的检查系统的可靠性,并探索了检查系统的实用程序,以表征实施研究提案中的常见缺陷。我们使用ICSPED系统进行了30个研究提案。提案收到了7个中位数累计分数,其中7分之一的可能性分为30分。在个人的个人要素中,建议获得护理或质量差距的标准证据的标准。所有其他标准通常表现不佳的建议。最多的建议获得了确定的标准的分数为识别基于证据的实践或治疗(50%),概念模​​型和理论辩护(70%),制定愿意采用新服务/待遇/计划(54%),实施策略/流程(67%),测量和分析(70%)。编码器间可靠性测试显示出优异的可靠性(KRIPPENDORFF的alpha系数0.88),用于适用于分量系统的总体,并显示各个元素的可靠性分数为0.77至0.99。检查评分系统提出了一个新的评分标准,具有高度的帧间间可靠性和效用,用于评估实施和改进科学授予提案的质量。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号