November 22, 2018

Operationalizing the ‘pragmatic’ measures construct using a stakeholder feedback and a multi-method approach

Authors:

Cameo F. Stanick, Heather M. Halko, Caitlin N. Dorsey, Bryan J. Weiner, Byron J. Powell, Lawrence A. Palinkas & Cara C. Lewis

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

Published: November 2018

Read the full text in the open access journal BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:

Context

Implementation science measures are rarely used by stakeholders to inform and enhance clinical program change. Little is known about what makes implementation measures pragmatic (i.e., practical) for use in community settings; thus, the present study’s objective was to generate a clinical stakeholder-driven operationalization of a pragmatic measures construct.

Evidence acquisition

The pragmatic measures construct was defined using: 1) a systematic literature review to identify dimensions of the construct using PsycINFO and PubMed databases, and 2) interviews with an international stakeholder panel (N = 7) who were asked about their perspectives of pragmatic measures.

Evidence synthesis

Combined results from the systematic literature review and stakeholder interviews revealed a final list of 47 short statements (e.g., feasible, low cost, brief) describing pragmatic measures, which will allow for the development of a rigorous, stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the pragmatic measures construct.

Conclusions

Results revealed significant overlap between terms related to the pragmatic construct in the existing literature and stakeholder interviews. However, a number of terms were unique to each methodology. This underscores the importance of understanding stakeholder perspectives of criteria measuring the pragmatic construct. These results will be used to inform future phases of the project where stakeholders will determine the relative importance and clarity of each dimension of the pragmatic construct, as well as their priorities for the pragmatic dimensions. Taken together, these results will be incorporated into a pragmatic rating system for existing implementation science measures to support implementation science and practice.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**