Evaluating an organization-wide disparity reduction program: Understanding what works for whom and why

Methods in realist evaluation: A mapping review

Realist evaluation is becoming increasingly popular as an evaluation methodology. Its main objective is to uncover the mechanisms that lead to observed outcomes following an intervention and the contextual conditions that enabled this. The focus is on explaining why, for whom and in what circumstances an intervention works. It is a theory-driven approach and is explicitly method neutral, meaning that both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods can be used to unearth the underlying mechanisms that cause the intervention outcomes. In this review, we aim to map the methods used in realist evaluation studies, to draw lessons from the findings and to reflect on ways forward. We found that qualitative methods and interviews specifically are most commonly used in realist evaluations; that theory is often absent behind the methods and sampling techniques used; and that more innovative methods remain underexplored. We conclude the review by proposing four ways forward: (1) developing realist surveys, (2) exploring the relevance of innovative methods, (3) increasing the attention paid to sampling procedures and (4) strengthening the theory-driven nature of method. We believe that these four action points can strengthen the practice of realist evaluation and its outcomes.

A more practical guide to incorporating health equity domains in implementation determinant frameworks

BACKGROUND

Due to striking disparities in the implementation of healthcare innovations, it is imperative that researchers and practitioners can meaningfully use implementation determinant frameworks to understand why disparities exist in access, receipt, use, quality, or outcomes of healthcare. Our prior work documented and piloted the first published adaptation of an existing implementation determinant framework with health equity domains to create the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We recommended integrating these three health equity domains to existing implementation determinant frameworks: (1) culturally relevant factors of recipients, (2) clinical encounter or patient-provider interaction, and (3) societal context (including but not limited to social determinants of health). This framework was developed for healthcare and clinical practice settings. Some implementation teams have begun using the Health Equity Implementation Framework in their evaluations and asked for more guidance.

METHODS

We completed a consensus process with our authorship team to clarify steps to incorporate a health equity lens into an implementation determinant framework.

RESULTS

We describe steps to integrate health equity domains into implementation determinant frameworks for implementation research and practice. For each step, we compiled examples or practical tools to assist implementation researchers and practitioners in applying those steps. For each domain, we compiled definitions with supporting literature, showcased an illustrative example, and suggested sample quantitative and qualitative measures.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating health equity domains within implementation determinant frameworks may optimize the scientific yield and equity of implementation efforts by assessing and ideally addressing implementation and equity barriers simultaneously. These practical guidance and tools provided can assist implementation researchers and practitioners to concretely capture and understand barriers and facilitators to implementation disparities.

National initiatives to promote quality of care and patient safety: achievements to date and challenges ahead

BACKGROUND

The quality of healthcare in Israel is considered "high", and this achievement is due to the structure and organization of the healthcare system. The goal of the present review is to describe the major achievements and challenges of quality improvement in the Israeli healthcare system. BODY: In recent years, the Ministry of Health has made major strides in increasing the public's access to comparative data on quality, finances and patient satisfaction. Several mechanisms at multiple levels help promote quality improvement and patient safety. These include legislation, financial incentives, and national programs for quality indicators, patient experience, patient safety, prevention and control of infection and accreditation. Over the years, improvements in quality indicators, infection prevention and patient satisfaction can be demonstrated, but other fields show little change, if at all. Challenges and barriers include reluctance by unions, inconsistent and unreliable flow of information, the fear of overpressure by management and the loss of autonomy by physicians, and doubts regarding "gaming" of data. Accreditation has its own challenges, such as the need to adjust it to local characteristics of the healthcare system, its high cost, and the limited evidence of its impact on quality. Lack of interest by leaders, lack of resources, burnout and compassion fatigue, are listed as challenges for improving patient experience.

CONCLUSION

Substantial efforts are being made in Israel to improve quality of care, based on the use of good data to understand what is working and what needs particular attention. Government and health care providers have the tools to continue to improve. However, several mechanisms for improving the quality of care, such as minimizing healthcare disparities, training for quality, and widespread implementation of the "choosing wisely" initiative, should be implemented more intensively and effectively.

Defining and assessing context in healthcare implementation studies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The implementation of evidence-based healthcare interventions is challenging, with a 17-year gap identified between the generation of evidence and its implementation in routine practice. Although contextual factors such as culture and leadership are strong influences for successful implementation, context remains poorly understood, with a lack of consensus regarding how it should be defined and captured within research. This study addresses this issue by providing insight into how context is defined and assessed within healthcare implementation science literature and develops a definition to enable effective measurement of context.

METHODS

Medline, PsychInfo, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched. Articles were included if studies were empirical and evaluated context during the implementation of a healthcare initiative. These English language articles were published in the previous 10 years and included a definition and assessment of context. Results were synthesised using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Three thousand and twenty-one search records were obtained of which 64 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Studies used a variety of definitions in terms of the level of detail and explanation provided. Some listed contextual factors (n = 19) while others documented sub-elements of a framework that included context (n = 19). The remaining studies provide a rich definition of general context (n = 11) or aspects of context (n = 15). The Alberta Context Tool was the most frequently used quantitative measure (n = 4), while qualitative papers used a range of frameworks to evaluate context. Mixed methods studies used diverse approaches; some used frameworks to inform the methods chosen while others used quantitative measures to inform qualitative data collection. Most studies (n = 50) applied the chosen measure to all aspects of study design with a majority analysing context at an individual level (n = 29).

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlighted inconsistencies in defining and measuring context which emphasised the need to develop an operational definition. By providing this consensus, improvements in implementation processes may result, as a common understanding will help researchers to appropriately account for context in research.