Skip to main content

Table 1 Brief descriptions of the theoretical perspectives used in this study

From: Multi-level factors influence the implementation and use of complex innovations in cancer care: a multiple case study of synoptic reporting

Theoretical perspective

Description

Promoting action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework

The PARiHS framework, which has undergone continual refinement since its initial publication in 1998 [43], proposes the implementation of evidence into practice is a function of the interaction between three core elements: 1) the level and nature of evidence; 2) the context or setting into which evidence is implemented (with context consisting of the sub-elements of culture, leadership, and evaluation); and 3) the method by which the process is facilitated. These elements are conceptualized as existing on a continuum, with high evidence, context, and facilitation driving successful implementation.

Organizational framework of innovation implementation

Helfrich and colleagues [45] adapted an organizational model on the implementation of complex innovations from the manufacturing sector [47],[48] for healthcare settings. This adapted framework comprises the following six elements and highlights relationships amongst these elements: management support, financial resource availability, implementation policies and practices, implementation climate, innovation champions, and innovation-values fit. The authors posit that these elements play important roles in achieving implementation effectiveness (i.e., consistent, committed, and skilled innovation use [47]).

`Systems’ thinking/change

Kitson [46] reviewed the critical social science, action science, diffusion and management of innovations, practice development, and learning organizations and systems theories literature to explore the underlying assumptions and theories used to describe how knowledge is translated into practice. The resulting critique posits that the successful translation of knowledge into practice is a function of: 1) how the individuals involved understand the nature and characteristics of the new knowledge; 2) their level of autonomy in making decisions about using the new knowledge; 3) how they negotiate and renegotiate relationships with others in the system; and 4) how they attract the resources needed to sustain changes in practice (whereby the involvement of key stakeholders is deemed critical to controlling and attracting resources).