Welcome to visit Zhongnan Medical Journal Press Series journal website!

When complexity science meets with implementation science: a call for paradigm diversification in implementation research

Published on Oct. 16, 2020Total Views: 9199 timesTotal Downloads: 3158 timesDownloadMobile

Author: Jun-Qiang ZHAO 1, 2*

Affiliation: 1. School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa K1H8M5, Ontario, Canada 2. Centre for Research on Health and Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa K1H8M5, Ontario, Canada

Keywords: Implementation science Complexity science Knowledge translation Evidence-based practice Implementation research System thinking Research paradigm Case study

DOI: 10.12173/j.issn.1004-5511.2020.05.05

Reference: Zhao JQ. When complexity science meets with implementation science: a call for paradigm diversification in implementation research[J]. Yixue Xinzhi Zazhi, 2020, 30(5): 364-375. DOI: 10.12173/j.issn.1004-5511.2020.05.05.[Article in Chinese]

  • Abstract
  • Full-text
  • References
Abstract

The results of a large number of implementation studies are not satisfactory. Most researchers interpret and analyze these unsatisfactory research findings from a methodological perspective with the scrutiny of the research design and implementation process. Few researchers have reflected on these results from a paradigmatic level. This paper firstly summarizes the research status of implementation science and teases out the mainstream paradigms of implementation research: positivism and constructivism. The positivist perspective focuses on the effectiveness of implementation strategies, and promotes the replicability and generalizability of research findings through various clinical trial designs with emphasis on the standardized interventions and implementation processes; constructivist perspective emphasizes the role of human beings, and promotes the power balance between researchers and knowledge users by building a long-term and stable partnership. It aims to facilitate facilitate knowledge users’ meaningful engagement in the whole implementation processes (such as the identification of research problem, development of implementation strategies, data analysis and interpretation, and dissemination of research findings etc.) and ensure the relevance and sustainability of research achievements. On this basis, this paper introduces the concept of complexity science by summarizing its origins, definition, the philosophical basis and the essence of healthcare from complexity science perspective, and puts forward the principles and methodologies of implementation research under the guidance of complexity science. The researcher argues that, different from efficacy and effectiveness researches, which aim to testify the effects of interventions in strictly or loosely controlled conditions, implementation research is to apply effective interventions into the real-world context which is full of complexity. Based on the perspective of complexity science, healthcare is a complex adaptive system, which has the characteristics of nonlinearity, openness, uncertainty, emergence and self-organization. It requires us to consider the implementation problems from a system level; embrace the creative opportunities brought by uncertainty; gain an in-depth understanding of the local context and organizational pattern; and promote the leading roles of knowledge users in the process of implementation, etc. Long-term and in-depth case study can be used as a methodology for implementation research from the complexity science perspective.

Full-text
Please download the PDF version to read the full text: download
References

1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence[J]. Lancet, 2009, 374(9683): 86-89. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9.

2. Braithwaite J. Changing how we think about healthcare improvement[J]. BMJ, 2018, 361: k2014. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k2014.

3. Braithwaite J, Hibbert PD, Jaffe A, et al. Quality of health care for children in Australia, 2012-2013[J]. JAMA, 2018, 319(11): 1113-1124. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.0162.

4. Zhao JQ, Demery Varin M, Graham ID. Guidelines do not self-implement: time for a research paradigm shift from massive creation to effective implementation in evidence-based medicine research in China[J]. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2020, 25(4): 118-119. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111193.

5. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, et al. Knowledge translation of research findings[J]. Implement Sci, 2012, 7(1): 50. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-50.

6. McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, et al. A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel?[J]. Implement Sci, 2010, 5(1):  16. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-16.

7. Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, et al. Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study[J]. Milbank Q, 2008, 86(1): 125-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00515.x.

8. Yost J, Ganann R, Thompson D, et al. The effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for promoting evidence-informed decision-making among nurses in tertiary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Implement Sci, 2015, 10(1): 98. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-015-0286-1.

9. Ament SM, de Groot JJ, Maessen JM, et al. Sustainability of professionals' adherence to clinical practice guidelines in medical care: a systematic review[J]. BMJ open, 2015, 5(12):  e008073. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008073.

10.    Hill JE, Stephani AM, Sapple P, et al. The effectiveness of continuous quality improvement for developing professional practice and improving health care outcomes: a systematic review[J]. Implement Sci, 2020, 15(1): 23. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-020-0975-2.

11.    Curran JA, Brehaut J, Patey AM, et al. Understanding the Canadian adult CT head rule trial: use of the theoretical domains framework for process evaluation[J]. Implement Sci, 2013, 8: 25. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-25.

12.    Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Eldh AC, et al. A realist process evaluation within the Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE) cluster randomised controlled international trial: an exemplar[J]. Implement Sci, 2018, 13(1): 138. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0.

13.    Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science[J]. Implement Sci, 2006, 1(1). DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.

14.    Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, et al. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it[J]. BMJ, 2013, 347:  f6753. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f6753.

15.    Rubenstein LV, Pugh J. Strategies for promoting organizational and practice change by advancing implementation research[J]. J Gen Intern Med, 2006, 21 (Suppl 2):S58-S64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00364.x.

16.    钟婕, 周英凤. 实施性研究的方法学及应用进展[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2018, 53(7): 862-866. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2018.07.019. [Zhong J, Zhou XF. The Methodology and Application Status of Implementation Research[J]. Chin J Nurs, 2018, 53(7): 862-866.]

17.    屈智勇, 郭帅, 张维军,  等. 实施科学对我国心理健康服务体系建设的启示[J]. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2017, (2): 29-36. DOI: 1002-0209( 2017)02-0029-08. [Qu ZY, Guo S, Zhang WJ, et al. The Enlightenment of implementing science to the construction of mental health service system in China[J]. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences), 2017, (2): 29-36.]

18.    National Institute of Mental Health. Dissemination and implementation research in mental health[EB/OL]. (2002-08-14)[Access on 2020-05-22]. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-MH-02-009.html.

19.    Glasgow RE, Vinson C, Chambers D, et al. National Institutes of Health Approaches to Dissemination and Implementation Science: Current and Future Directions[J]. Am J Public Health, 2012, 102(7): 1274-1281. DOI: 10.2105/Ajph.2012.300755.

20.    McLean RK, Graham ID, Bosompra K, et al. Understanding the performance and impact of public knowledge translation funding interventions: protocol for an evaluation of Canadian Institutes of Health Research knowledge translation funding programs[J]. Implement Sci, 2012, 7: 57. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-57.

21.    Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge translation at CIHR[EB/OL]. (2016-07-28)[Access on 2020-05-22].  http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html.

22.    Peters DH, Tran NT, Adam T. Implementation research in health: a practical guide. 2013: World Health Organization.

23.    Cochrane. Cochrane Community, Knowledge translation[EB/OL]. [Access on 2020-05-22]. https://community.cochrane.org/review-production/knowledge-translation.

24.    Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of Chaos: Use of Theory in Implementation Research[J]. Psychiatry Res 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.036.

25.    Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks[J]. Implementation sci, 2015, 10(1):  53. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.

26.    Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, et al. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques[J]. Appl Phycol, 2008, 57(4): 660-680. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00341.x.

27.    Strifler L, Cardoso R, McGowan J, et al. Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2018, 100: 92-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.008.

28.    Cheng L, Feng S, Hu Y. Evidence-based nursing implementation in Mainland China: A scoping review[J]. Nurs Outlook, 2017, 65(1): 27-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2016.07.016.

29.    王薇, 李朝煜, 张敏, 等. 关注实践过程的循证护理模式研究进展[J]. 中国护理管理, 2018, 18(3): 428-432. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2018.03.032. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2018.03.032. [Wang W, Li ZY, Zhang M, et al. Evidence-Based Nursing models: focusing on the process of evidence-based practice[J]. Chin Nurs Manag, 2018, 18(3): 428-432.]

30.    李朝煜, 牛玉婷, 王薇, 等. 关注循证实践本质的循证护理模式研究进展[J]. 中国护理管理, 2017, 17(12):  1720-1725. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2017.12.033. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2017.12.033. [Li ZY, Niu YT, Wang W, et al. The research progress of Evidence-Based Nursing models: focusing on the essence of Evidence-Based Practice[J]. Chin Nurs Manag, 2017, 17(12): 1720-1725.]

31.    Mdege ND, Man MS, Taylor Nee Brown CA, et al. Systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials shows that design is particularly used to evaluate interventions during routine implementation[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(9):  936-948. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.003.

32.    Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, et al. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact[J]. Med Care, 2012, 50(3):  217-226. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.

33.    Bernet AC, Willens DE, Bauer MS. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: implications for quality improvement science[J]. Implement Sci, 2013, 8(Suppl 1):  S2. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-8-S1-S2.

34.    邵华, 王琦琦, 胡跃华, 等. 中断时间序列分析及其在公共卫生领域中的应用[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2015, 36(9): 1015-1017. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2015.09.023. [Shang H, Wang QQ, Hu YH, et al. Interrupted time-series analysis and its application in public health[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2015, 36(9): 1015-1017. ]

35.    Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice[M]. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

36.    Collins LM, SA Murphy, Strecher V. The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): new methods for more potent eHealth interventions[J]. Am J Prev Med 2007, 32(5):  S112-S118. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.022.

37.    Pinnock H, Epiphaniou E, Sheikh A, et al. Developing standards for reporting implementation studies of complex interventions (StaRI): a systematic review and e-Delphi[J]. Implement Sci, 2015, 10: 42. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-015-0235-z.

38.    Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, et al. Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement[J]. BMJ, 2017, 356: i6795. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i6795.

39.    Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, et al. Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI): explanation and elaboration document[J]. BMJ Open, 2017, 7(4): e013318. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013318.

40.    邢唯杰, 朱政, 胡雁, 等. 实施性研究的报告规范(StaRI)解读[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2019, 19(1):  97-101. DOI: 10.7507/1672-2531.201808102. DOI: 10.7507/1672-2531.201808102. [Xing WJ, Zhu Z, Hu Y, et al. Interpretation of standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI)[J]. Chin J Evid-Based Med, 2019, 19(1):  97-101.]

41.    Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario. Toolkit: Implementation of Best Practice Guidelines Second Edition[EB/OL]. [Access on 2020-05-22]. https://rnao.ca/bpg/resources/toolkit-implementation-best-practice-guidelines-second-edition.

42.    TDR. TDR Implementation research toolkit[EB/OL].  [Access on 2020-05-22]. http://adphealth.org/irtoolkit/.

43.    Greenhalgh T. How to implement evidence-based healthcare[M]. John Wiley & Sons, 2017.

44.    Wensing M, Grol R, Grimshaw J. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care[M]. Wiley-Blackwell, 2020.

45.    Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.

46.    陈向明. 质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M]. 北京: 教育科学出版社, 2000. [Chen XM. Qualitative research method and social science research[M]. Beijing: Educational Science Publishing House, 2000.]

47.    Grant BM, Giddings LS. Making sense of methodologies: A paradigm framework for the novice researcher[J]. Contemp Nurse, 2002, 13(1): 10-28. DOI: 10.5172/conu.13.1.10.

48.    Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?[J]. J Contin Educ Health Prof, 2006, 26(1): 13-24. DOI: 10.1002/chp.47.

49.    French SD, Green SE, O’Connor DA, et al. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework[J]. Implement Sci, 2012, 7(1): 38.

50.    Middleton S, Dale S, Cheung NW, et al. Nurse-Initiated Acute Stroke Care in Emergency Departments[J]. Stroke, 2019: STROKEAHA118020701. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.020701.

51.    Middleton S, Levi C, Dale S, et al. Triage, treatment and transfer of patients with stroke in emergency department trial (the T(3) Trial): a cluster randomised trial protocol[J]. Implement Sci, 2016, 11(1): 139. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-016-0503-6.

52.    Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Spreading and scaling up innovation and improvement[J]. BMJ, 2019, 365: l2068. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l2068.

53.    Gagliardi AR, Kothari A, Graham ID. Research agenda for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in healthcare: what we know and do not yet know[J]. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2017, 71(2): 105-106. DOI: 10.1136/jech-2016-207743.

54.    Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature[J]. Health Res Policy Syst, 2020, 18(1): 51. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9.

55.    Gifford W, Thomas R, Barton G, et al. Providing culturally safe cancer survivorship care with Indigenous communities: study protocol for an integrated knowledge translation study[J]. Pilot Feasibility Stud, 2019, 5(1): 33. DOI: 10.1186/s40814-019-0422-9.

56.    Gifford W, Thomas R, Barton G, et al. "Breaking the Silence" to Improve Cancer Survivorship Care for First Nations Peoples: A Study Protocol for an Indigenous Knowledge Translation Strategy[J]. Int J Qual Methods, 2018, 17: 1-6. DOI: 10.1177/1609406918774133.

57.    McWilliam CL, Kothari A, Ward-Griffin C, et al. Evolving the theory and praxis of knowledge translation through social interaction: a social phenomenological study[J]. Implement Sci, 2009, 4: 26. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-26.

58.    Thomas A, Menon A, Boruff J, et al. Applications of social constructivist learning theories in knowledge translation for healthcare professionals: a scoping review[J]. Implement Sci, 2014, 9: 54. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-54.

59.    Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N. The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?[J]. Health Res Policy Syst, 2019, 17(1): 33. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3.

60.    Williams O, Sarre S, Papoulias SC, et al. Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production[J]. Health Res Policy Syst, 2020, 18(1): 43. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-020-00558-0.

61.    Merner B, Hill S, Colombo C, et al. Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person‐centred health services: a co‐produced qualitative evidence synthesis[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019(2). DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013274.

62.    陈晓平. 复杂系统论的方法论性质及其科学—哲学双重性——从协同学的角度看[J]. 晋阳学刊, 2016(6):  79-84. DOI: 1000-2987(2016)06-0079-06. [Chen XP. The methodological nature of complex system theory and its science philosophy duality - from the perspective of Synergetics[J]. Academic Journal of JinYang, 2016(6): 79-84.]

63.    于丹妮. 复杂性科学视角下教育研究方法论变革探究[D]. 2013, 青海师范大学. [Yu DN. On the reform of educational research methodology from the perspective of complexity science[D]. 2013, Qinghai Normal University.]

64.    Cohn S, Clinch M, Bunn C, et al. Entangled complexity: why complex interventions are just not complicated enough[J]. J Health Serv Res Policy, 2013, 18(1): 40-43. DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2012.012036.

65.    Lindberg C, Nash S, Lindberg C. On the edge: Nursing in the age of complexity[M]. Bordentown, NJ: Plexus Press, 2008.

66.    Clark AM, Lissel SL, C Davis Complex Critical Realism: Tenets and Application in Nursing Research [J]. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 2008, 31(4): E67-E79. DOI: 10.1097/01.ANS.0000341421.34457.2a.

67.    Castellani B, Hafferty FW. Sociology and complexity science: a new field of inquiry[M]. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009.

68.    Cochran-Smith M, Ell F, Grudnoff L, et al. When complexity theory meets critical realism: A platform for research on initial teacher education[J]. Teacher Education Quarterly, 2014, 41(1): 105-122.

69.    Cilliers P, Spurrett D. Complexity and post-modernism: Understanding complex systems[J]. S Afr J Philos, 1999. 18(2):  258-274. DOI: 10.1080/02580136.1999.10878187.

70.    Long KM, McDermott F, Meadows GN. Being pragmatic about healthcare complexity: our experiences applying complexity theory and pragmatism to health services research[J]. BMC Med, 2018, 16(1): 94. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1087-6.

71.    Rescher N. Complexity: A philosophical overview[M]. Transaction Publishers, 1998.

72.    Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science[M]. Leeds, UK: Leeds Books, 1975.

73.    Bhaskar R. The Possibility of Naturalism[M]. Sussex, UK: Harvester Press, 1979.

74.    Bhasker R. Reclaiming reality[M]. London: Verso, 1989.

75.    Maxwell JA, Mittapalli K. Realism as a stance for mixed methods research[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010.

76.    Patomäki H, Wight C. After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism[J]. International Studies Quarterly, 2000, 44(2):  213-237.

77.    Schiller CJ. Critical realism in nursing: an emerging approach[J]. Nurs Philos, 2016, 17(2): 88-102. DOI: 10.1111/nup.12107.

78.    Ellis B. Complexity in practice: understanding primary care as a complex adaptive system[J]. Inform Prim Care 2010, 18(2): 135-140. DOI: 10.14236/jhi.v18i2.763.

79.    Holden LM. Complex adaptive systems: concept analysis[J]. J Adv Nurs, 2005, 52(6): 651-657. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03638.x.

80.    Chaffee MW, McNeill MM. A model of nursing as a complex adaptive system[J]. Nurs Outlook, 2007, 55(5): 232-241. e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2007.04.003.

81.    Leykum LK, Lanham HJ, Pugh JA, et al. Manifestations and implications of uncertainty for improving healthcare systems: an analysis of observational and interventional studies grounded in complexity science[J]. Implement Sci, 2014, 9(1): 165. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-014-0165-1.

82.    Lanham HJ, Leykum LK, Taylor BS, et al. How complexity science can inform scale-up and spread in health care: understanding the role of self-organization in variation across local contexts[J]. Soc Sci Med, 2013, 93: 194-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.040.

83.    Reed JE, Howe C, Doyle C, et al. Simple rules for evidence translation in complex systems: A qualitative study[J]. BMC Med, 2018, 16(1): 92. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1076-9.

84.    Rogers KH, Luton R, Biggs H, et al. Fostering complexity thinking in action research for change in social–ecological systems[J]. Ecol Soc, 2013, 18(2). DOI: 10.5751/ES-05330-180231.

85.    成思危. 复杂科学与管理[J]. 南昌大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2000(3): 1-6. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0448. 2000.03.001. [Cheng SW. Complex science and management[J]. Journal of Nanchang University(Humanities and Social Sciences), 2000(3):  1-6.]

86.    Thompson DS, Fazio X, Kustra E, et al. Scoping review of complexity theory in health services research[J]. BMC Health Serv Res, 2016, 16(1): 87. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1343-4.

87.    Braithwaite J, Churruca K, Long JC, et al. When complexity science meets implementation science: a theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change[J]. BMC Med, 2018, 16(1): 63. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1057-z.

88.    Pawson R.,  N. Tilley. Realistic evaluation[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.

89.    Pawson R, Tilley N. An introduction to scientific realist evaluation, in Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.

90.    Wong G, Westhorp G, Manzano A, et al. RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations[J]. BMC Med, 2016, 14(1):  96. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1.

91.    衡明莉, 王北琪, 王骏. 对美国FDA适应性设计指导原则的介绍[J]. 中国临床药理学杂志, 2019. 35(12):  1316-1320. DOI: 10.13699/j.cnki.1001-6821.2019.12.027. [Heng ML, Wang BQ, Wang J, Introduction to the guidance for industry on adaptive designs for clinical trials of drugs and biologics issued by FDA[J]. Chin J Clin Pharmacol, 2019,35(12):  1316-1320.]

92.    Guastaferro K, Collins LM. Achieving the Goals of Translational Science in Public Health Intervention Research: The Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST)[J]. Am J Public Health, 2019, 109(S2): S128-S129. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304874.