RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Researchers have argued for the value of ethnographic approaches to implementation science (IS). The contested meanings of ethnography pose challenges and possibilities to its use in IS. The goal of this study was to identify sources of commonality and variation, and to distill a set of recommendations for reporting ethnographic approaches in IS. METHODS: We included in our scoping review English-language academic journal articles meeting two criteria: (1) IS articles in the healthcare field and (2) articles that described their approach as ethnographic. In March 2019, we implemented our search criteria in four academic databases and one academic journal. Abstracts were screened for inclusion by at least two authors. We iteratively develop a codebook for full-text analysis and double-coded included articles. We summarized the findings and developed reporting recommendations through discussion. RESULTS: Of the 210 articles whose abstracts were screened, 73 were included in full-text analysis. The number of articles increased in recent years. Ethnographic approaches were used within a wide variety of theoretical approaches and research designs. Articles primarily described using interviews and observational methods as part of their ethnographic approaches, though numerous other methods were also employed. The most cited rationales for using ethnographic approaches were to capture context-specific phenomena, understand insiders' perspective, and study complex interactions. In reporting on ethnographic approaches, we recommend that researchers provide information on researcher training and position, reflect on researchers' positionality, describe observational methods in detail, and report results from all the methods used. CONCLUSION: The number of IS studies using ethnography has increased in recent years. Ethnography holds great potential for contributing further to IS, particularly to studying implementation strategy mechanisms and understanding complex adaptive systems.
RESUMEN
CONTEXT: More than 4 decades of research indicate that parenting interventions are effective at preventing and treating mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders in children and adolescents. Pediatric primary care is a viable setting for delivery of these interventions. OBJECTIVE: Previous meta-analyses have shown that behavioral interventions in primary care can improve clinical outcomes, but few reviews have been focused specifically on the implementation of parenting interventions in primary care. We aimed to fill this gap. DATA SOURCES: We reviewed 6532 unique peer-reviewed articles published in PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycInfo. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if at least part of the intervention was delivered in or through primary care; parenting was targeted; and child-specific mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes were reported. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were reviewed in Covidence by 2 trained coders, with a third coder arbitrating discrepancies. RESULTS: In our review of 40 studies, most studies were coded as a primary. Few researchers collected implementation outcomes, particularly those at the service delivery system level. LIMITATIONS: Including only published articles could have resulted in underrepresentation of implementation-related data. CONCLUSIONS: Parenting interventions delivered and implemented with fidelity in pediatric primary care could result in positive and equitable impacts on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes for both parents and their children. Future research on the implementation strategies that can support adoption and sustained delivery of parenting interventions in primary care is needed if the field is to achieve population-level impact.
