Repository logo
Log In
  1. Home
  2. Unibas
  3. Publications
  4. Methodological approaches to study context in intervention implementation studies: an evidence gap map
 
  • Details

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

Date Issued
2022-01-01
Author(s)
Mielke, Juliane  
Brunkert, Thekla  
Zúñiga, Franziska  
Simon, Michael  
Zullig, Leah L.
De Geest, Sabina  
DOI
10.1186/s12874-022-01772-w
Abstract
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.; 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.; 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.; 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.
File(s)
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name

s12874-022-01772-w

Size

1.83 MB

Format

Unknown

Checksum

(MD5):bd2599cfbd08f61842dd79e7f8db9c72

University of Basel

edoc
Open Access Repository University of Basel

  • About edoc
  • About Open Access at the University of Basel
  • edoc Policy

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement