首页> 外文期刊>Implementation Science >Designing and implementing two facilitation interventions within the ‘Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE)’ study: a qualitative analysis from an external facilitators’ perspective
【24h】

Designing and implementing two facilitation interventions within the ‘Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE)’ study: a qualitative analysis from an external facilitators’ perspective

机译:在“促进研究证据(Fire)”研究中设计和实施两种促进干预措施:外部促进者的观点进行定性分析

获取原文
       

摘要

The 'Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence' study found no significant differences between sites that received two types of facilitation support and those that did not on the primary outcome of documented compliance with guideline recommendations. Process evaluation highlighted factors that influenced local, internal facilitators' ability to enact the roles as envisaged. In this paper, the external facilitators responsible for designing and delivering the two types of facilitation intervention analyse why the interventions proved difficult to implement as expected, including the challenge of balancing fidelity and adaptation. Qualitative data sources included notes from monthly internal-external facilitator teleconference meetings, from closing events for the two facilitation interventions and summary data analyses from repeated interviews with 16 internal facilitators. Deductive and inductive data analysis was led by an independent researcher to evaluate how facilitation in practice compared to the logic pathways designed to guide fidelity in the delivery of the interventions. The planned facilitation interventions did not work as predicted. Difficulties were encountered in each of the five elements of the logic pathway: recruitment and selection of appropriate internal facilitators, preparation for the role, ability to apply facilitation knowledge and skills at a local level, support and mentorship from external facilitators via monthly teleconferences, working collaboratively and enabling colleagues to implement guideline recommendations. Moreover, problems were cumulative and created tensions for the external facilitators in terms of balancing the logic pathway with a more real-world, flexible and iterative approach to facilitation. Evaluating an intervention that is fluid and dynamic within the methodology of a randomised controlled trial is complex and challenging. At a practical level, relational aspects of facilitation are critically important. It is essential to recruit and retain individuals with the appropriate set of skills and characteristics, explicit support from managerial leaders and accessible mentorship from more experienced facilitators. At a methodological level, there is a need for attention to the balance between fidelity and adaptation of interventions. For future studies, we suggest a theoretical approach to fidelity, with a focus on mechanisms, informed by prospective use of process evaluation data and more detailed investigation of the context-facilitation dynamic.
机译:“促进研究证据的实施”研究发现,接受了两种促进支持的地点之间没有显着差异,并且这些支持的网站与未记录符合指南建议的主要结果的地点之间没有显着差异。过程评估强调影响当地,内部促进者的能力,以设想的是制定角色的能力。在本文中,负责设计和提供两种促进干预的外部促进者分析了为什么难以按预期实施的干预措施,包括平衡富达和适应的挑战。定性数据来源包括每月内部外部促进者电话会议的票据,从结束事件的两项促进干预措施和摘要数据分析来自重复访谈的16个内部促进者。由独立的研究人员引导了演绎和归纳数据分析,以评估与逻辑途径相比,旨在指导忠诚于交付干预措施的逻辑途径进行培养的方式。计划的便利化干预措施并未按照预测工作。逻辑通路五个要素中的每一个都遇到了困难:招聘和选择适当的内部协调人,筹备作用,通过每月电话会议,从外部促进者从外部促进者施加促进知识和技能的作用,工作协作和使同事实施指南建议。此外,在平衡逻辑途径方面,问题对外部促进者进行了累积,并对外部促进者产生了紧张局势,以更现实的,灵活的和迭代的便利化。评估在随机对照试验的方法的方法中是流体和动态的干预是复杂的和挑战性的。在实际水平,促进的关系方面至关重要。招聘和保留有适当的技能和特征,从管理领导人和更多经验丰富的协调人员明确支持。在方法水平,需要注意保真度与干预适应之间的平衡。对于未来的研究,我们建议一种理论上的忠诚方法,专注于机制,通过前瞻性地使用过程评估数据和更详细地调查背景便利动态。

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