Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework

Theoretical and practical challenges

Bibliographic Data

ID23329039
AuthorsAlison L Kitson (University of Oxford, corresponding author), Jo Rycroft‐malone (0000-0003-3858-5625, Bangor University), Gill Harvey (0000-0003-0937-7819, University of Manchester), Brendan Mccormack (0000-0001-8525-8905, University of Ulster), Kate Seers (0000-0001-7921-552X, University of Warwick), Angie Titchen (Fontys University of Applied Sciences)
Year2008
Volume3
Issue1
Pages1-1
Publication date2008-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueImplementation Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1748-5908 • E-ISSN: 1748-5908
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1186/1748-5908-3-1
PMID18179688
PMCIDPMC2235887
OpenAlexW1989529511
LanguageEN
Citations received103
References cited32

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.

Conceptual framework · Context (archaeology) · Data science · Framing (construction) · Health services research · Knowledge management · Management science · Process (computing) · Process management · Public health · Social science · Sociology · Computer Science · Health Policy Implementation Science · Health Sciences Research and Education · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement