Shoba Ramanadhan, Melinda M. Davis, Rebecca Armstrong, Barbara Baquero, Linda K. Ko, Jennifer C. Leng, Ramzi G. Salloum, Nicole A. Vaughn, & Ross C. Brownson
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: February 2018
Byron J. Powell, Cameo F. Stanick, Heather M. Halko, Caitlin N. Dorsey, Bryan J. Weiner, Melanie A. Barwick, Laura J. Damschroder, Michel Wensing, Luke Wolfenden, and Cara C. Lewis
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: October 2017
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.
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.
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.
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.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Arianna R. Means, David E. Phillips, Grégoire Lurton, Anne Njoroge, Sabine M. Furere, Rong Liu, Wisal M. Hassan, Xiaochen Dai, Orvalho Augusto, Peter Cherutich, Gloria Ikilezi, Caroline Soi, Dong (Roman) Xu & Christopher G. Kemp
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: November 2016
Bridging the ‘know-do gap’ is an enormous challenge for global health practitioners. They must be able to understand local health dynamics within the operational and social contexts that engender them, test and adjust approaches to implementation in collaboration with communities and stakeholders, interpret data to inform policy decisions, and design adaptive and resilient health systems at scale. These skills and methods have been formalized within the nascent field of Implementation Science (IS). As graduates of the world's first PhD program dedicated explicitly to IS, we have a unique perspective on the value of IS and the training, knowledge, and skills essential to bridging the ‘know-do gap’. In this article, we describe the philosophy and curricula at the core of our program, outline the methods vital to IS in a global health context, and detail the role that we believe IS will increasingly play in global health practice. At this junction of enormous challenges and opportunities, we believe that IS offers the necessary tools for global health professionals to address complex problems in context and raises the bar of success for the global health programs of the future.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**