Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping

Public Deposited
Analytics

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
Request Version for Screen Reader
Creator
  • Powell, Byron
    • Affiliation: Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management
  • Stanick, Cameo F
    • Other Affiliation: Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services
  • Halko, Heather M
    • Other Affiliation: University of Montana
  • Dorsey, Caitlin N
    • Other Affiliation: Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute
  • Weiner, Bryan J
    • Other Affiliation: University of Washington
  • Barwick, Melanie A
    • Other Affiliation: University of Toronto
  • Damschroder, Laura J
    • Other Affiliation: VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System
  • Wensing, Michel
    • Other Affiliation: University Hospital Heidelberg
  • Wolfenden, Luke
    • Other Affiliation: The University of Newcastle
  • Lewis, Cara C
    • Other Affiliation: Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute
Abstract
  • Abstract Background Advancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpose of this study was to establish a stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the domains that comprise the pragmatic measure construct. It built upon a systematic review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews that generated 47 criteria for pragmatic measures, and aimed to further refine that set of criteria by identifying conceptually distinct categories of the pragmatic measure construct and providing quantitative ratings of the criteria’s clarity and importance. Methods Twenty-four stakeholders with expertise in implementation practice completed a concept mapping activity wherein they organized the initial list of 47 criteria into conceptually distinct categories and rated their clarity and importance. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Findings The 47 criteria were meaningfully grouped into four distinct categories: (1) acceptable, (2) compatible, (3) easy, and (4) useful. Average ratings of clarity and importance at the category and individual criteria level will be presented. Conclusions This study advances the field of implementation science and practice by providing clear and conceptually distinct domains of the pragmatic measure construct. Next steps will include a Delphi process to develop consensus on the most important criteria and the development of quantifiable pragmatic rating criteria that can be used to assess measures.
Date of publication
DOI
Identifier
Resource type
  • Article
Rights statement
  • In Copyright
Rights holder
  • The Author(s).
Journal title
  • Implementation Science
Journal volume
  • 12
Journal issue
  • 1
Language
  • English
Bibliographic citation
  • Implementation Science. 2017 Oct 03;12(1):118
Publisher
  • BioMed Central

Relations

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Items

Thumbnail Title Date Uploaded Visibility Actions
file details 13012_2017_article_649.pdf 2019-05-06 Public Download