Providing a scaffold for considering theoretical frameworks in evidence implementation projects: the JBI approach to evidence implementation.

ABSTRACT: There are many theories, models, and frameworks that have been proposed in the field of implementation science. Despite this, many evidence implementation or practice improvement projects do not consider these theories, models, or frameworks in their improvement efforts. The JBI approach is one example of an implementation theory, model, or framework. This approach has been developed particularly with health care professionals in mind and is designed to clearly guide pragmatic evidence implementation efforts based on the best available evidence. In this paper, we discuss how the JBI approach to evidence implementation can interact with and support theory-informed, pragmatic evidence implementation projects.

The role of intravenous acetaminophen in acute pain management: a case-illustrated review.

For more than a century, acetaminophen has been recognized worldwide as a safe and effective agent for relieving pain and reducing fever in a wide range of patients. However, until recently, acetaminophen was available in the United States only in oral and rectal suppository formulations. In November 2010, the United States Food and Drug Administration granted approval for the use of a new intravenous (IV) formulation of acetaminophen for: 1) the management of mild to moderate pain; 2) the management of moderate to severe pain with adjunctive opioid analgesics; and 3) the reduction of fever in adults and children (age ≥ 2 years). This case-illustrated review of IV acetaminophen begins with a discussion of the rationale for the drug's development and proceeds to analyze the clinical pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and nursing implications of its use, both as monotherapy and in combination with other agents as part of a multimodal pain therapy strategy.

Facilitation as a component of evidence implementation: a multinational perspective.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is a key component of JBI's approach to evidence implementation along with context analysis and evaluation of process and outcomes. Although the role of facilitation is recognized as a critical component of evidence implementation, what constitutes effective facilitation is poorly understood. AIM: This article presents a descriptive exploration of facilitation as it occurs in evidence implementation initiatives conducted in various healthcare and geographical contexts. All projects used the JBI approach to evidence implementation. METHODS: To provide a multinational perspective on how facilitation was operationalized to promote positive changes in clinical practice and health outcomes, five case studies of evidence implementation projects are presented. RESULTS: The cases highlighted that facilitation is a multifaceted process that can be met through a variety of roles that address aspects of education and capacity building, partnerships, action planning, problem solving and evaluation. Facilitation in all cases appeared to be collaborative, with multiple 'players' within and outside of the health organization being involved in the process. Although there are similarities in activities, facilitation involved some level of local contextualization where there were unique or additional activities performed to accommodate the local needs and requirements of the health organization involved in each case. Numerous contextual factors influenced the success of the implementation initiative. CONCLUSION: The cases emphasized the complex nature of facilitation as a strategy for evidence implementation, indicating that contextual attributes and features define the range of knowledge, skills, and activities that should take place in order for facilitation to be effective. Although there appears to be some core components, tailoring and adaptation of the facilitation process (or roles) is required.

Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement.

ABSTRACT: The demand for rapid reviews has exploded in recent years. A rapid review is an approach to evidence synthesis that provides timely information to decision-makers (eg, health care planners, providers, policymakers, patients) by simplifying the evidence synthesis process. A rapid review is particularly appealing for urgent decisions. JBI is a world-renowned international collaboration for evidence synthesis and implementation methodologies. The principles for JBI evidence synthesis include comprehensiveness, rigor, transparency, and a focus on applicability to clinical practice. As such, JBI has not yet endorsed a specific approach for rapid reviews. In this paper, we compare rapid reviews versus other types of evidence synthesis, provide a range of rapid evidence products, outline how to appraise the quality of rapid reviews, and present the JBI position on rapid reviews. JBI Collaborating Centers conduct rapid reviews for decision-makers in specific circumstances, such as limited time or funding constraints. A standardized approach is not used for these cases;instead, the evidence synthesis methods are tailored to the needs of the decision-maker. The urgent need to deliver timely evidence to decision-makers poses challenges to JBI's mission to produce high-quality, trustworthy evidence. However, JBI recognizes the value of rapid reviews as part of the evidence synthesis ecosystem. As such, it is recommended that rapid reviews be conducted with the same methodological rigor and transparency expected of JBI reviews. Most importantly, transparency is essential, and the rapid review should clearly report where any simplification in the steps of the evidence synthesis process has been taken.