Article

A thematic analysis of theoretical models for translational science in nursing: Mapping the field

National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Nursing outlook (Impact Factor: 1.83). 11/2010; 58(6):287-300. DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2010.07.001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The quantity and diversity of conceptual models in translational science may complicate rather than advance the use of theory. This paper offers a comparative thematic analysis of the models available to inform knowledge development, transfer, and utilization. Literature searches identified 47 models for knowledge translation. Four thematic areas emerged: (1) evidence-based practice and knowledge transformation processes, (2) strategic change to promote adoption of new knowledge, (3) knowledge exchange and synthesis for application and inquiry, and (4) designing and interpreting dissemination research. This analysis distinguishes the contributions made by leaders and researchers at each phase in the process of discovery, development, and service delivery. It also informs the selection of models to guide activities in knowledge translation. A flexible theoretical stance is essential to simultaneously develop new knowledge and accelerate the translation of that knowledge into practice behaviors and programs of care that support optimal patient outcomes.

2 Followers
 · 
251 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Implementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers. Theoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks). This article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited "how-to" support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.
    Implementation Science 04/2015; 10(1):53. DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A comprehensive guide that identifies critical evaluation and reporting elements necessary to move research into practice is needed. We propose a framework that highlights the domains required to enhance the value of dissemination and implementation research for end users. We emphasize the importance of transparent reporting on the planning phase of research in addition to delivery, evaluation, and long-term outcomes. We highlight key topics for which well-established reporting and assessment tools are underused (e.g., cost of intervention, implementation strategy, adoption) and where such tools are inadequate or lacking (e.g., context, sustainability, evolution) within the context of existing reporting guidelines. Consistent evaluation of and reporting on these issues with standardized approaches would enhance the value of research for practitioners and decision-makers. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print November 13, 2014: e1-e9. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302206).
    American Journal of Public Health 11/2014; DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302206 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Nursing Management (Springhouse) 09/2014; 45(9):23-25. DOI:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000453281.64617.23