Specifying an implementation framework for Veterans Affairs antimicrobial stewardship programmes: using a factor analysis approach

Procalcitonin and Risk Prediction for Diagnosing Bacteremia in Hospitalized Patients: A Retrospective, National Observational Study

Bacteremia is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Timely, appropriate therapy may improve clinical outcomes, and therefore, determining which patients benefit from more comprehensive diagnostic strategies (i.e., direct specimen testing) could be of value. We performed an assessment of procalcitonin (PCT) and clinical characteristics in the discrimination of bacteremic hospitalizations. We analyzed 71,105 encounters and 14,846 visits of patients with bacteremia alongside 56,259 without an admission. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for the prediction of bacteremia via procalcitonin was 0.782 (95% CI 0.779-0.787). The prediction modeling of clinical factors with or without PCT resulted in a similar performance to PCT alone. However, the clinically predicted risk of bacteremia stratified by PCT thresholds allowed the targeting of high-incidence bacteremia groups (e.g., ≥50% positivity). The combined use of PCT and clinical characteristics could be useful in diagnostic stewardship by targeting further advanced diagnostic testing in patients with a high predicted probability of bacteremia.

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice-a citation analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was developed two decades ago and conceptualizes successful implementation (SI) as a function (f) of the evidence (E) nature and type, context (C) quality, and the facilitation (F), [SI = f (E,C,F)]. Despite a growing number of citations of theoretical frameworks including PARIHS, details of how theoretical frameworks are used remains largely unknown. This review aimed to enhance the understanding of the breadth and depth of the use of the PARIHS framework.

METHODS

This citation analysis commenced from four core articles representing the key stages of the framework's development. The citation search was performed in Web of Science and Scopus. After exclusion, we undertook an initial assessment aimed to identify articles using PARIHS and not only referencing any of the core articles. To assess this, all articles were read in full. Further data extraction included capturing information about where (country/countries and setting/s) PARIHS had been used, as well as categorizing how the framework was applied. Also, strengths and weaknesses, as well as efforts to validate the framework, were explored in detail.

RESULTS

The citation search yielded 1613 articles. After applying exclusion criteria, 1475 articles were read in full, and the initial assessment yielded a total of 367 articles reported to have used the PARIHS framework. These articles were included for data extraction. The framework had been used in a variety of settings and in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. With regard to types of use, 32% used PARIHS in planning and delivering an intervention, 50% in data analysis, 55% in the evaluation of study findings, and/or 37% in any other way. Further analysis showed that its actual application was frequently partial and generally not well elaborated.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with previous citation analysis of the use of theoretical frameworks in implementation science, we also found a rather superficial description of the use of PARIHS. Thus, we propose the development and adoption of reporting guidelines on how framework(s) are used in implementation studies, with the expectation that this will enhance the maturity of implementation science.