A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation

Independent Consultant, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA. .
Implementation Science (Impact Factor: 4.12). 08/2011; 6(1):99. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-99
Source: PubMed


Based on a critical synthesis of literature on use of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, revisions and a companion Guide were developed by a group of researchers independent of the original PARIHS team. The purpose of the Guide is to enhance and optimize efforts of researchers using PARIHS in implementation trials and evaluations.
Authors used a planned, structured process to organize and synthesize critiques, discussions, and potential recommendations for refinements of the PARIHS framework arising from a systematic review. Using a templated form, each author independently recorded key components for each reviewed paper; that is, study definitions, perceived strengths/limitations of PARIHS, other observations regarding key issues and recommendations regarding needed refinements. After reaching consensus on these key components, the authors summarized the information and developed the Guide.
A number of revisions, perceived as consistent with the PARIHS framework's general nature and intent, are proposed. The related Guide is composed of a set of reference tools, provided in Additional files. Its core content is built upon the basic elements of PARIHS and current implementation science.
We invite researchers using PARIHS for targeted evidence-based practice (EBP) implementations with a strong task-orientation to use this Guide as a companion and to apply the revised framework prospectively and comprehensively. Researchers also are encouraged to evaluate its use relative to perceived strengths and issues. Such evaluations and critical reflections regarding PARIHS and our Guide could thereby promote the framework's continued evolution.

1 Follower
45 Reads
    • "The focus groups started with a general question about facilitators' experience implementing SPHM in medical centers and continued with more specific questions about how they implemented the program, what things they did to implement the program, and how leadership, culture and staff influenced implementation. Subelements of facilitation including activities, skills, and characteristics, were covered as suggested in the PARIHS framework (Stetler et al., 2011). We used a three-step conclusion with each focus group— summarizing our results and confirming, reviewing the purpose and asking if anything was missed, and thanking the facilitators for participating (Krueger & Casey, 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the literature has noted the positive effects of facilitation in implementation research, little is known about what facilitators do or how they increase adoption of a program. The purpose of this study was to understand internal facilitation activities in implementing a national safe patient handling program from the perspective of facility coordinators who implemented the program. Using a qualitative descriptive design, data were collected in five focus groups at two international Safe Patient Handling and Mobility Conferences. Participants were 38 facility coordinators implementing a safe patient handling program in the Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers throughout the United States. Data were analyzed using direct content analysis to gather descriptions of internal facilitation. The internal facilitation process involved engaging multiple disciplines and levels of leadership for implementation. Fifty-four facilitation activities were identified, including five activities not currently listed in an existing taxonomy. Key characteristics and skills of facilitators included persistence, credibility and clinical experience, and leadership and project management experience. Themes were mapped onto an existing framework and taxonomy of facilitation activities. Internal facilitation is both an implementation intervention and a process involving a wide range of activities. The findings provide an understanding of what internal facilitators are doing to support practice changes and the characteristics and skills of internal facilitators that are likely to result in long-term organizational change. Five recommendations for action address organizations, senior leaders, and internal facilitators. © Published 2015. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 07/2015; 12(4). DOI:10.1111/wvn.12098 · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The Facilitation implementation strategy will consist of EF and IF (Table 2). Based on the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) Framework [70–74], facilitation is defined as the process of interactive problem solving and support that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and a supportive interpersonal relationship [41,74]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Despite the availability of psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBPs), treatment and outcomes for persons with mental disorders remain suboptimal. Replicating Effective Programs (REP), an effective implementation strategy, still resulted in less than half of sites using an EBP. The primary aim of this cluster randomized trial is to determine, among sites not initially responding to REP, the effect of adaptive implementation strategies that begin with an External Facilitator (EF) or with an External Facilitator plus an Internal Facilitator (IF) on improved EBP use and patient outcomes in 12 months.Methods/DesignThis study employs a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design to build an adaptive implementation strategy. The EBP to be implemented is life goals (LG) for patients with mood disorders across 80 community-based outpatient clinics (N¿=¿1,600 patients) from different U.S. regions. Sites not initially responding to REP (defined as <50% patients receiving ¿3 EBP sessions) will be randomized to receive additional support from an EF or both EF/IF. Additionally, sites randomized to EF and still not responsive will be randomized to continue with EF alone or to receive EF/IF. The EF provides technical expertise in adapting LG in routine practice, whereas the on-site IF has direct reporting relationships to site leadership to support LG use in routine practice. The primary outcome is mental health-related quality of life; secondary outcomes include receipt of LG sessions, mood symptoms, implementation costs, and organizational change.DiscussionThis study design will determine whether an off-site EF alone versus the addition of an on-site IF improves EBP uptake and patient outcomes among sites that do not respond initially to REP. It will also examine the value of delaying the provision of EF/IF for sites that continue to not respond despite EF.Trial identifier: NCT02151331.
    Implementation Science 09/2014; 9(1):132. DOI:10.1186/s13012-014-0132-x · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Most importantly, the identification of a NQR as a context, evidence, and/or facilitating aspect needs further exploration, along with additional studies on the stakeholders’ role and function. While our study indicates that the framework is applicable for investigating if and how a NQR facilitates quality improvement and/or EBP [33], it may support both the need for further development of PARIHS [35, 36] and exploring other theoretical frameworks and models on NQRs role in promoting EBP [37]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background National quality registries (NQRs) purportedly facilitate quality improvement, while neither the extent nor the mechanisms of such a relationship are fully known. The aim of this case study is to describe the experiences of local stakeholders to determine those elements that facilitate and hinder clinical quality improvement in relation to participation in a well-known and established NQR on stroke in Sweden. Methods A strategic sample was drawn of 8 hospitals in 4 county councils, representing a variety of settings and outcomes according to the NQR’s criteria. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 managers, physicians in charge of the Riks-Stroke, and registered nurses registering local data at the hospitals. Interviews, including aspects of barriers and facilitators within the NQR and the local context, were analysed with content analysis. Results An NQR can provide vital aspects for facilitating evidence-based practice, for example, local data drawn from national guidelines which can be used for comparisons over time within the organisation or with other hospitals. Major effort is required to ensure that data entries are accurate and valid, and thus the trustworthiness of local data output competes with resources needed for everyday clinical stroke care and quality improvement initiatives. Local stakeholders with knowledge of and interest in both the medical area (in this case stroke) and quality improvement can apply the NQR data to effectively initiate, carry out, and evaluate quality improvement, if supported by managers and co-workers, a common stroke care process and an operational management system that embraces and engages with the NQR data. Conclusion While quality registries are assumed to support adherence to evidence-based guidelines around the world, this study proposes that a NQR can facilitate improvement of care but neither the registry itself nor the reporting of data initiates quality improvement. Rather, the local and general evidence provided by the NQR must be considered relevant and must be applied in the local context. Further, the quality improvement process needs to be facilitated by stakeholders collaborating within and outside the context, who know how to initiate, perform, and evaluate quality improvement, and who have the resources to do so.
    BMC Health Services Research 08/2014; 14(1):354. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-354 · 1.71 Impact Factor
Show more