Table 1 Descriptions of engagement within select implementation models, theories, or frameworks
Description | Model or framework | Concept | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
Process | Stages of implementation completion [35] | Stage 1: Engagement (activities) | “Date site is informed services/program available…Date of interest indicated” (p. 3) |
CIHR model of knowledge translation [32] | Integrated knowledge translation | “Involving knowledge users as equal partners alongside researchers…Each stage in the research process is an opportunity for significant collaboration with knowledge users” | |
Knowledge user | “A knowledge user’s level of engagement in the research process may vary in intensity and complexity depending on the nature of the research and on his/her information needs” | ||
Dissemination | “Engaging knowledge users in developing and executing dissemination/implementation plan” | ||
Quality implementation framework [34] | Phase 1: initial considerations (capacity-building strategies) | “Obtaining explicit buy-in from critical stakeholders and fostering a supportive community/organizational climate” (p. 468) | |
CFIR [33] | Process | “Planning, engaging, executing, and reflecting and evaluating. These activities may be accomplished formally or informally through, for example, grassroots change efforts.” (p. 15) | |
Process: engaging | “Attracting and involving appropriate individuals… through a combined strategy” (p. 11) | ||
Mechanisms | CFIR [33] | Characteristics of individuals | Knowledge and beliefs, individual identification with organization, other personal attributes |
Inner setting: readiness for implementation | “Leadership engagement: commitment, involvement, and accountability of leaders and managers” (p. 9) | ||
Inner setting: implementation climate, compatibility | “The degree of tangible fit between meaning and values attached to the intervention by involved individuals, how those align with individuals’ own norms, values, and perceived risks and needs” (p. 8) | ||
Inner setting: implementation climate, learning climate | “A climate in which: leaders express their own fallibility and need for team members’ assistance and input; team members feel that they are essential, valued, and knowledgeable partners in the change process” (p. 9) | ||
COM-B [77] | Capability | “Capability is defined as the individual’s psychological and physical capacity to engage in the activity concerned.” (p. 4) | |
Normalization process theory [78] | Cognitive participation | “Within the purposive interaction chains that make up an implementation process, a practice is framed through cognitive participation, the symbolic and real enrolments and engagements of human actors that position them for the interactional and material work of collective action.” (p. 543) | |
Collective action | “This work may be to reshape behaviours or actions, to employ objects or artefacts, or it may be to reorganize relationships and contexts – but it involves collective purposive action aimed at some goal” (p. 544) | ||
Re-AIM [79] | Reach | “An individual-level measure (e.g., patient or employee) of participation. Reach refers to the percentage and risk characteristics of persons who receive or are affected by a policy or program.” (p. 1323) | |
Output | i-PARIHS [80] | Outcome: successful implementation | “Individuals, teams and stakeholders are engaged, motivated and ‘own’ the innovation” (p. 4) |
QUERI [81] | Dissemination | “An active, versus passive, effort to communicate tailored information to target audiences with the goal of engagement and information use” | |
Organizational Readiness for Change [82] | Change-related efforts | “Members are more likely to initiate change (e.g., institute new policies, procedures, or practices), exert greater effort in support of change, and exhibit greater persistence in the face of obstacles or setbacks during implementation…. will exhibit more pro-social, change-related behavior” (p. 5) |