RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Context (work environment) plays a crucial role in implementing evidence-based best practices within health care settings. Context is multi-faceted and its complex relationship with best practice use by care aides in long-term care (LTC) homes are understudied. This study used an innovative approach to investigate how context elements interrelate and influence best practice use by LTC care aides. METHODS: In this secondary analysis study, we combined coincidence analysis (a configurational comparative method) and qualitative analysis to examine data collected through the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program. Coincidence analysis of clinical microsystem (care unit)-level data aggregated from a survey of 1,506 care aides across 36 Canadian LTC homes identified configurations (paths) of context elements linked consistently to care aides' best practices use, measured with a scale of conceptual research use (CRU). Qualitative analysis of ethnographic case study data from 3 LTC homes (co-occurring with the survey) further informed interpretation of the configurations. RESULTS: Three paths led to very high CRU at the care unit level: very high leadership; frequent use of educational materials; or a combination of very high social capital (teamwork) and frequent communication between care aides and clinical educators or specialists. Conversely, 2 paths led to very low CRU, consisting of 3 context elements related to unfavorable conditions in relationships, resources, and formal learning opportunities. Our qualitative analysis provided insights into how specific context elements served as facilitators or barriers for best practices. This qualitative exploration was especially helpful in understanding 2 of the paths, illustrating the pivotal role of leadership and the function of teamwork in mitigating the negative impact of time constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Our study deepens understanding of the complex interrelationships between context elements and their impact on the implementation of best practices in LTC homes. The findings underscore that there is no singular, universal bundle of context-related elements that enhance or hinder best practice use in LTC homes.
RESUMO
Rapidly growing populations of older adults rely heavily on formal long-term care services such as those provided in nursing homes. Nursing home staff are confronted with complex challenges. We explored how staff (N = 88), particularly care aides, interpreted challenges and responded to them by taking adaptive leadership roles, and engaging in technical and adaptive work in nursing homes. We conducted analysis of the ethnographic case studies. In long-term care settings, staff face complex challenges in improving resident care due to contextual barriers. These include demanding work conditions and inadequate resources. Additionally, top-down communications, despite being well-intentioned, often lead to misinterpretation and a lack of staff motivation. Nonetheless, we found that certain staff managed to overcome these contextual barriers and effectively execute change initiatives by assuming adaptive leadership roles. Formal leaders have a vital role in empowering staff, including care aides, and facilitating their adaptive leadership behaviors.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The number of research publications reporting the use of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework and the integrated PARIHS (i-PARIHS) framework has grown steadily. We asked how the last decade of implementation research, predicated on the (i-)PARIHS framework (referring to the PARIHS or i-PARIHS framework), has contributed to our understanding of the conceptualizations of, relationships between, and dynamics among the core framework elements/sub-elements. Building on the Helfrich et al. (2010) review of research on the PARIHS framework, we undertook a critical interpretive synthesis to: (1) identify conceptual and relational advances in the (i-)PARIHS framework and (2) identify conceptual and relational aspects of the (i-)PARIHS framework that warrant further work. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in PubMed/PubMed Central, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, JSTOR, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PsycInfo. Articles were eligible for synthesis if they (a) were peer-reviewed articles, written in English, and published between January 2009 and December 2021, (b) applied the (i-)PARIHS framework explicitly to guide implementation research, and (c) made conceptual (expanding the conceptualization of core elements) and/or relational contributions (elaborating relationships among elements/sub-elements, or theorizing the relationships using empirical data). We used a critical interpretive synthesis approach to synthesize conceptual-relational advances of the (i-)PARIHS framework. RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles were eligible for synthesis. Twenty-four offered conceptual contributions, and 18 offered relational contributions (5 articles contributed in both ways). We found conceptual expansion of all core (i-)PARIHS elements, with most emphasis on context (particularly outer context and leadership), facilitation, and implementation success. Articles also gave insights into the complex relationships and relational dynamism among these elements, characterized as contingent, interactive, multilevel, and temporal effects. CONCLUSIONS: We observed developmental advances of the (i-)PARIHS framework and proposed several directions to further advance the framework. Conceptualization of (i-)PARIHS elements (particularly evidence/innovation and recipients) need to be further developed by specifying conceptual and operational definitions of underlying sub-elements. Relationships among (i-)PARIHS elements/sub-elements need to be further elaborated through empirical studies that consider situational contingencies and causal complexities. This will require examining necessity and sufficiency of (i-)PARIHS elements/sub-elements in relation to implementation outcomes, interactions among elements, and mechanism-based explanations.