13 results on '"McCormack, Brendan"'
Search Results
2. Designing and implementing two facilitation interventions within the ‘Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE)’ study: a qualitative analysis from an external facilitators’ perspective
- Author
-
Harvey, Gill, McCormack, Brendan, Kitson, Alison, Lynch, Elizabeth, and Titchen, Angie
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE): an international cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate two models of facilitation informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework
- Author
-
Seers, Kate, Rycroft-Malone, Jo, Cox, Karen, Crichton, Nicola, Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor, Eldh, Ann Catrine, Estabrooks, Carole A., Harvey, Gill, Hawkes, Claire, Jones, Carys, Kitson, Alison, McCormack, Brendan, McMullan, Christel, Mockford, Carole, Niessen, Theo, Slater, Paul, Titchen, Angie, van der Zijpp, Teatske, and Wallin, Lars
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research
- Author
-
Rycroft-Malone Jo, McCormack Brendan, Hutchinson Alison M, DeCorby Kara, Bucknall Tracey K, Kent Bridie, Schultz Alyce, Snelgrove-Clarke Erna, Stetler Cheryl B, Titler Marita, Wallin Lars, and Wilson Val
- Subjects
Medicine (General) ,R5-920 - Abstract
Abstract Background Realist synthesis is an increasingly popular approach to the review and synthesis of evidence, which focuses on understanding the mechanisms by which an intervention works (or not). There are few published examples of realist synthesis. This paper therefore fills a gap by describing, in detail, the process used for a realist review and synthesis to answer the question ‘what interventions and strategies are effective in enabling evidence-informed healthcare?’ The strengths and challenges of conducting realist review are also considered. Methods The realist approach involves identifying underlying causal mechanisms and exploring how they work under what conditions. The stages of this review included: defining the scope of the review (concept mining and framework formulation); searching for and scrutinising the evidence; extracting and synthesising the evidence; and developing the narrative, including hypotheses. Results Based on key terms and concepts related to various interventions to promote evidence-informed healthcare, we developed an outcome-focused theoretical framework. Questions were tailored for each of four theory/intervention areas within the theoretical framework and were used to guide development of a review and data extraction process. The search for literature within our first theory area, change agency, was executed and the screening procedure resulted in inclusion of 52 papers. Using the questions relevant to this theory area, data were extracted by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Synthesis involved organisation of extracted data into evidence tables, theming and formulation of chains of inference, linking between the chains of inference, and hypothesis formulation. The narrative was developed around the hypotheses generated within the change agency theory area. Conclusions Realist synthesis lends itself to the review of complex interventions because it accounts for context as well as outcomes in the process of systematically and transparently synthesising relevant literature. While realist synthesis demands flexible thinking and the ability to deal with complexity, the rewards include the potential for more pragmatic conclusions than alternative approaches to systematic reviewing. A separate publication will report the findings of the review.
- Published
- 2012
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. FIRE (facilitating implementation of research evidence): a study protocol
- Author
-
Seers Kate, Cox Karen, Crichton Nicola J, Edwards Rhiannon, Eldh Ann, Estabrooks Carole A, Harvey Gill, Hawkes Claire, Kitson Alison, Linck Pat, McCarthy Geraldine, McCormack Brendan, Mockford Carole, Rycroft-Malone Jo, Titchen Angie, and Wallin Lars
- Subjects
Medicine (General) ,R5-920 - Abstract
Abstract Background Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids. Objectives This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make to implementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process for translating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of two different models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management; assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing a pro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practice community. Setting and sample Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for people aged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinence Methods and design Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and two different programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome is compliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents with incontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailed contextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin, observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realistic evaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502.
- Published
- 2012
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships: a realistic evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC)
- Author
-
Rycroft-Malone Jo, Wilkinson Joyce E, Burton Christopher R, Andrews Gavin, Ariss Steven, Baker Richard, Dopson Sue, Graham Ian, Harvey Gill, Martin Graham, McCormack Brendan G, Staniszewska Sophie, and Thompson Carl
- Subjects
Medicine (General) ,R5-920 - Abstract
Abstract Background The English National Health Service has made a major investment in nine partnerships between higher education institutions and local health services called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). They have been funded to increase capacity and capability to produce and implement research through sustained interactions between academics and health services. CLAHRCs provide a natural 'test bed' for exploring questions about research implementation within a partnership model of delivery. This protocol describes an externally funded evaluation that focuses on implementation mechanisms and processes within three CLAHRCs. It seeks to uncover what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances. Design and methods This study is a longitudinal three-phase, multi-method realistic evaluation, which deliberately aims to explore the boundaries around knowledge use in context. The evaluation funder wishes to see it conducted for the process of learning, not for judging performance. The study is underpinned by a conceptual framework that combines the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Knowledge to Action frameworks to reflect the complexities of implementation. Three participating CLARHCS will provide in-depth comparative case studies of research implementation using multiple data collection methods including interviews, observation, documents, and publicly available data to test and refine hypotheses over four rounds of data collection. We will test the wider applicability of emerging findings with a wider community using an interpretative forum. Discussion The idea that collaboration between academics and services might lead to more applicable health research that is actually used in practice is theoretically and intuitively appealing; however the evidence for it is limited. Our evaluation is designed to capture the processes and impacts of collaborative approaches for implementing research, and therefore should contribute to the evidence base about an increasingly popular (e.g., Mode two, integrated knowledge transfer, interactive research), but poorly understood approach to knowledge translation. Additionally we hope to develop approaches for evaluating implementation processes and impacts particularly with respect to integrated stakeholder involvement.
- Published
- 2011
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Developing the practice context to enable more effective pain management with older people: an action research approach
- Author
-
McCormack Brendan G and Brown Donna
- Subjects
Medicine (General) ,R5-920 - Abstract
Abstract Background This paper, which draws upon an Emancipatory Action Research (EAR) approach, unearths how the complexities of context influence the realities of nursing practice. While the intention of the project was to identify and change factors in the practice context that inhibit effective person-centred pain management practices with older people (65 years or older), reflective critical engagement with the findings identified that enhancing pain management practices with older people was dependent on cultural change in the unit as a whole. Methods An EAR approach was utilised. The project was undertaken in a surgical unit that conducted complex abdominal surgery. Eighty-five percent (n = 48) of nursing staff participated in the two-year project (05/NIR02/107). Data were obtained through the use of facilitated critical reflection with nursing staff. Results Three key themes (psychological safety, leadership, oppression) and four subthemes (power, horizontal violence, distorted perceptions, autonomy) were found to influence the way in which effective nursing practice was realised. Within the theme of 'context,' effective leadership and the creation of a psychologically safe environment were key elements in the enhancement of all aspects of nursing practice. Conclusions Whilst other research has identified the importance of 'practice context' and models and frameworks are emerging to address this issue, the theme of 'psychological safety' has been given little attention in the knowledge translation/implementation literature. Within the principles of EAR, facilitated reflective sessions were found to create 'psychologically safe spaces' that supported practitioners to develop effective person-centred nursing practices in complex clinical environments.
- Published
- 2011
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges
- Author
-
McCormack Brendan, Harvey Gill, Rycroft-Malone Jo, Kitson Alison L, Seers Kate, and Titchen Angie
- Subjects
Medicine (General) ,R5-920 - Abstract
Abstract Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives.
- Published
- 2008
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare
- Author
-
Rycroft-Malone, Jo, primary, Burton, Christopher R, additional, Wilkinson, Joyce, additional, Harvey, Gill, additional, McCormack, Brendan, additional, Baker, Richard, additional, Dopson, Sue, additional, Graham, Ian D., additional, Staniszewska, Sophie, additional, Thompson, Carl, additional, Ariss, Steven, additional, Melville-Richards, Lucy, additional, and Williams, Lynne, additional
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. A realist review of interventions and strategies to promote evidence-informed healthcare: a focus on change agency
- Author
-
McCormack, Brendan, primary, Rycroft-Malone, Joanne, additional, DeCorby, Kara, additional, Hutchinson, Alison M, additional, Bucknall, Tracey, additional, Kent, Bridie, additional, Schultz, Alyce, additional, Snelgrove-Clarke, Erna, additional, Stetler, Cheyl, additional, Titler, Marita, additional, Wallin, Lars, additional, and Wilson, Valerie, additional
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
11. Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare.
- Author
-
Rycroft-Malone, Jo, Burton, Christopher R., Wilkinson, Joyce, Harvey, Gill, McCormack, Brendan, Baker, Richard, Dopson, Sue, Graham, Ian D., Staniszewska, Sophie, Thompson, Carl, Ariss, Steven, Melville-Richards, Lucy, and Williams, Lynne
- Subjects
COOPERATION ,MEDICAL care ,EVIDENCE ,THEORY of knowledge ,REALISM ,COMPARATIVE studies ,COOPERATIVENESS ,DIFFUSION of innovations ,LONGITUDINAL method ,RESEARCH methodology ,MEDICAL cooperation ,MEDICAL personnel ,ORGANIZATIONAL change ,PUBLIC relations ,RESEARCH ,RESEARCH funding ,EVALUATION research ,PSYCHOLOGY of Research personnel ,PSYCHOLOGY - Abstract
Background: Increasingly, it is being suggested that translational gaps might be eradicated or narrowed by bringing research users and producers closer together, a theory that is largely untested. This paper reports a national study to fill a gap in the evidence about the conditions, processes and outcomes related to collaboration and implementation.Methods: A longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative methods case studies was conducted with three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research in Care (England). Data were collected over four rounds of theory development, refinement and testing. Over 200 participants were involved in semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations of events and meetings, and stakeholder engagement. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process was focused on proposition refinement and testing iteratively over data collection rounds.Results: The quality of existing relationships between higher education and local health service, and views about whether implementation was a collaborative act, created a path dependency. Where implementation was perceived to be removed from service and there was a lack of organisational connections, this resulted in a focus on knowledge production and transfer, rather than co-production. The collaborations' architectures were counterproductive because they did not facilitate connectivity and had emphasised professional and epistemic boundaries. More distributed leadership was associated with greater potential for engagement. The creation of boundary spanning roles was the most visible investment in implementation, and credible individuals in these roles resulted in cross-boundary work, in facilitation and in direct impacts. The academic-practice divide played out strongly as a context for motivation to engage, in that 'what's in it for me' resulted in variable levels of engagement along a co-operation-collaboration continuum. Learning within and across collaborations was patchy depending on attention to evaluation.Conclusions: These collaborations did not emerge from a vacuum, and they needed time to learn and develop. Their life cycle started with their position on collaboration, knowledge and implementation. More impactful attempts at collective action in implementation might be determined by the deliberate alignment of a number of features, including foundational relationships, vision, values, structures and processes and views about the nature of the collaboration and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
12. Developing the practice context to enable more effective pain management with older people: an action research approach
- Author
-
Brown, Donna, primary and McCormack, Brendan G, additional
- Published
- 2011
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
13. Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges
- Author
-
Kitson, Alison L, primary, Rycroft-Malone, Jo, additional, Harvey, Gill, additional, McCormack, Brendan, additional, Seers, Kate, additional, and Titchen, Angie, additional
- Published
- 2008
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.