Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): a systematic review

Sarah A Birken, Byron J Powell, Justin Presseau, M Alexis Kirk, Fabiana Lorencatto, Natalie J Gould, Christopher M Shea, Bryan J Weiner, Jill J Francis, Yan Yu, Emily Haines, Laura J Damschroder, Sarah A Birken, Byron J Powell, Justin Presseau, M Alexis Kirk, Fabiana Lorencatto, Natalie J Gould, Christopher M Shea, Bryan J Weiner, Jill J Francis, Yan Yu, Emily Haines, Laura J Damschroder

Abstract

Background: Over 60 implementation frameworks exist. Using multiple frameworks may help researchers to address multiple study purposes, levels, and degrees of theoretical heritage and operationalizability; however, using multiple frameworks may result in unnecessary complexity and redundancy if doing so does not address study needs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) are both well-operationalized, multi-level implementation determinant frameworks derived from theory. As such, the rationale for using the frameworks in combination (i.e., CFIR + TDF) is unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to elucidate the rationale for using CFIR + TDF by (1) describing studies that have used CFIR + TDF, (2) how they used CFIR + TDF, and (2) their stated rationale for using CFIR + TDF.

Methods: We undertook a systematic review to identify studies that mentioned both the CFIR and the TDF, were written in English, were peer-reviewed, and reported either a protocol or results of an empirical study in MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, or Google Scholar. We then abstracted data into a matrix and analyzed it qualitatively, identifying salient themes.

Findings: We identified five protocols and seven completed studies that used CFIR + TDF. CFIR + TDF was applied to studies in several countries, to a range of healthcare interventions, and at multiple intervention phases; used many designs, methods, and units of analysis; and assessed a variety of outcomes. Three studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple study purposes. Six studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple conceptual levels. Four studies did not explicitly state their rationale for using CFIR + TDF.

Conclusions: Differences in the purposes that authors of the CFIR (e.g., comprehensive set of implementation determinants) and the TDF (e.g., intervention development) propose help to justify the use of CFIR + TDF. Given that the CFIR and the TDF are both multi-level frameworks, the rationale that using CFIR + TDF is needed to address multiple conceptual levels may reflect potentially misleading conventional wisdom. On the other hand, using CFIR + TDF may more fully define the multi-level nature of implementation. To avoid concerns about unnecessary complexity and redundancy, scholars who use CFIR + TDF and combinations of other frameworks should specify how the frameworks contribute to their study.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42015027615.

Keywords: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; Implementation frameworks; Implementation theories; Systematic review; Theoretical Domains Framework.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram

References

    1. Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43:337–50. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024.
    1. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, Baumann AA, Hamilton AM, Santens RL. Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients. Implement Sci. 2012;7:96. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-96.
    1. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.
    1. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:13–24. doi: 10.1002/chp.47.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:26–33. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.
    1. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1322–7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
    1. Foy R, Ovretveit J, Shekelle PG, Pronovost PJ, Taylor SL, Dy S, Hempel S, McDonald KM, Rubenstein LV, Wachter RM. The role of theory in research to develop and evaluate the implementation of patient safety practices. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:453–9. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.047993.
    1. Huijg JM, Gebhardt WA, Crone MR, Dusseldorp E, Presseau J. Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research. Implement Sci. 2014;9:11. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-11.
    1. Birken SA, Powell BJ, J P. Toward criteria for selecting appropriate frameworks and theories in implementation research. Poster session presented at: 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation; 2015 December 14–15; Washington, DC.
    1. Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. 2016;11:72. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z.
    1. Francis JJ, O’Connor D, Curran J. Theories of behaviour change synthesised into a set of theoretical groupings: introducing a thematic series on the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7:35. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-35.
    1. Beenstock J, Sniehotta FF, White M, Bell R, Milne EM, Araujo-Soares V. What helps and hinders midwives in engaging with pregnant women about stopping smoking? A cross-sectional survey of perceived implementation difficulties among midwives in the North East of England. Implement Sci. 2012;7:36. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-36.
    1. Curran JA, Brehaut J, Patey AM, Osmond M, Stiell I, Grimshaw JM. Understanding the Canadian adult CT head rule trial: use of the theoretical domains framework for process evaluation. Implement Sci. 2013;8:25. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-25.
    1. Patey AM, Islam R, Francis JJ, Bryson GL, Grimshaw JM. Anesthesiologists’ and surgeons’ perceptions about routine pre-operative testing in low-risk patients: application of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify factors that influence physicians’ decisions to order pre-operative tests. Implement Sci. 2012;7:52. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-52.
    1. Tavender EJ, Bosch M, Gruen RL, Green SE, Knott J, Francis JJ, Michie S, O’Connor DA. Understanding practice: the factors that influence management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department—a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci. 2014;9:8. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-8.
    1. Noar SM, Zimmerman RS. Health Behavior Theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: are we moving in the right direction? Health Educ Res. 2005;20:275–90. doi: 10.1093/her/cyg113.
    1. Walshe K. Pseudoinnovation: the development and spread of healthcare quality improvement methodologies. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21:153–9. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzp012.
    1. Ferlie EB, Shortell SM. Improving the quality of health care in the United Kingdom and the United States: a framework for change. Milbank Q. 2001;79:281–315. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00206.
    1. Ritchie J, Lewis J, McNaughton Nicholls C, Ormston R. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. 2. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2013.
    1. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:117. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117.
    1. Gould NJ, Lorencatto F, Stanworth SJ, Michie S, Prior ME, Glidewell L, Grimshaw JM, Francis JJ. Application of theory to enhance audit and feedback interventions to increase the uptake of evidence-based transfusion practice: an intervention development protocol. Implement Sci. 2014;9:92. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0092-1.
    1. Prior M, Elouafkaoui P, Elders A, Young L, Duncan EM, Newlands R, Clarkson JE, Ramsay CR. Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing behaviour in general dental practice (the RAPiD trial): a partial factorial cluster randomised trial protocol. Implement Sci. 2014;9:50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-50.
    1. Manca DP, Aubrey-Bassler K, Kandola K, Aguilar C, Campbell-Scherer D, Sopcak N, O’Brien MA, Meaney C, Faria V, Baxter J, et al. Implementing and evaluating a program to facilitate chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: a mixed methods program evaluation. Implement Sci. 2014;9:135. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0135-7.
    1. Graham-Rowe E, Lorencatto F, Lawrenson JG, Burr J, Grimshaw JM, Ivers NM, Peto T, Bunce C, Francis JJ, For the WIDeR-EyeS Project team Barriers and enablers to diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2016;5:134. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0309-2.
    1. Sales AE, Ersek M, Intrator OK, Levy C, Carpenter JG, Hogikyan R, Kales HC, Landis-Lewis Z, Olsan T, Miller SC, Montagnini M, Periyakoil VS, Reder S. Implementing goals of care conversations with veterans in VA long-term care setting: a mixed methods protocol. Implement Sci. 2016;11:132. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0497-0.
    1. Murphy AL, Gardner DM, Kutcher SP, Martin-Misener R. A theory-informed approach to mental health care capacity building for pharmacists. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2014;8:46. doi: 10.1186/1752-4458-8-46.
    1. English M. Designing a theory-informed, contextually appropriate intervention strategy to improve delivery of paediatric services in Kenyan hospitals. Implement Sci. 2013;8:39. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-39.
    1. Bunger AC, Hanson RF, Doogan NJ, Powell BJ, Cao Y, Dunn J. Can learning collaboratives support implementation by rewiring professional networks? Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016;43:79–92. doi: 10.1007/s10488-014-0621-x.
    1. Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernandez D, Benrimoj SI. Qualitative study on the implementation of professional pharmacy services in Australian community pharmacies using framework analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:439. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1689-7.
    1. Newlands R, Duncan EM, Prior M, Elouafkaoui P, Elders A, Young L, Clarkson JE, Ramsay CR, for the Translation Research in a Dental Setting (TRiaDS) Research Methodology Group Barriers and facilitators of evidence-based management of patients with bacterial infections among general dental practitioners: a theory-informed interview study. Implement Sci. 2016;11:11. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0372-z.
    1. Templeton AR, Young L, Bish A, Gnich W, Cassie H, Treweek S, Bonetti D, Stirling D, Macpherson L, McCann S, Clarkson J, Ramsay C, With the PMC study team Patient-, organization-, and system-level barriers and facilitators to preventive oral health care: a convergent mixed-methods study in primary dental care. Implement Sci. 2016;11:5. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0366-2.
    1. Elouafkaoui P, Young L, Newlands R, Duncan EM, Elders A, Clarkson JE, Ramsay CR, Translation Research in a Dental Setting (TRiaDS) Research Methodology Group An audit and feedback intervention for reducing antibiotic prescribing in general dental practice: the RAPiD cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2016;13:8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002115.
    1. Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, Robertson N, Wensing M, Fiander M, Eccles MP, et al. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:Cd005470. . Issue #4.
    1. Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Mandell DS. Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2015. doi:10.1007/s11414-015-9475-6.
    1. Wensing M, Bosch M, Grol R. Selecting, tailoring and implementing knowledge translation interventions. In: Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, editors. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.; 2009. pp. 94–113.
    1. Kessler RS, Purcell EP, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Benkeser RM, Peek CJ. What does it mean to “employ” the RE-AIM model? Eval Health Prof. 2013;36:44–66. doi: 10.1177/0163278712446066.
    1. Albrecht L, Archibald M, Arseneau D, Scott SD. Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations. Implement Sci. 2013;8:52. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-52.
    1. Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci. 2010;5:14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-14.
    1. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-139.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다