Search

BACKGROUND: Context is a problem in research on health behaviour change, knowledge translation, practice implementation and health improvement. This is because many intervention and evaluation designs seek to eliminate contextual confounders, when these represent the normal conditions into which interventions must be integrated if they are to be workable in practice. DISCUSSION: We present an ecological model of the ways that participants in implementation and health improvement processes interact with contexts. The paper addresses the problem of context as it affects processes of implementation, scaling up and diffusion of interventions. We extend our earlier work to develop Normalisation Process Theory and show how these processes involve interactions between mechanisms of resource mobilisation, collective action and negotiations with context. These mechanisms are adaptive. They contribute to self-organisation in complex adaptive systems. CONCLUSION: Implementation includes the translational efforts that take healthcare interventions beyond the closed systems of evaluation studies into the open systems of 'real world' contexts. The outcome of these processes depends on interactions and negotiations between their participants and contexts. In these negotiations, the plasticity of intervention components, the degree of participants' discretion over resource mobilisation and actors' contributions, and the elasticity of contexts, all play important parts. Understanding these processes in terms of feedback loops, adaptive mechanisms and the practical compromises that stem from them enables us to see the mechanisms specified by NPT as core elements of self-organisation in complex systems.

The RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework was conceptualized two decades ago. As one of the most frequently applied implementation frameworks, RE-AIM has now been cited in over 2,800 publications. This paper describes the application and evolution of RE-AIM as well as lessons learned from its use. RE-AIM has been applied most often in public health and health behavior change research, but increasingly in more diverse content areas and within clinical, community, and corporate settings. We discuss challenges of using RE-AIM while encouraging a more pragmatic use of key dimensions rather than comprehensive applications of all elements. Current foci of RE-AIM include increasing the emphasis on cost and adaptations to programs and expanding the use of qualitative methods to understand "how" and "why" results came about. The framework will continue to evolve to focus on contextual and explanatory factors related to RE-AIM outcomes, package RE-AIM for use by non-researchers, and integrate RE-AIM with other pragmatic and reporting frameworks.

The ultimate impact of a health innovation depends not only on its effectiveness but also on its reach in the population and the extent to which it is implemented with high levels of completeness and fidelity. Implementation science has emerged as the potential solution to the failure to translate evidence from research into effective practice and policy evident in many fields. Implementation scientists have developed many frameworks, theories and models, which describe implementation determinants, processes, or outcomes; yet, there is little guidance about how these can inform the development or selection of implementation strategies (methods or techniques used to improve adoption, implementation, sustainment, and scale-up of interventions) (1, 2). To move the implementation science field forward and to provide a practical tool to apply the knowledge in this field, we describe a systematic process for planning or selecting implementation strategies: Implementation Mapping.

BACKGROUND: The past decade has seen considerable interest in the development and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. Such interventions can only have a significant impact on health and health care if they are shown to be effective when tested, are capable of being widely implemented and can be normalised into routine practice. To date, there is still a problematic gap between research and implementation. The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) addresses the factors needed for successful implementation and integration of interventions into routine work (normalisation). DISCUSSION: In this paper, we suggest that the NPT can act as a sensitising tool, enabling researchers to think through issues of implementation while designing a complex intervention and its evaluation. The need to ensure trial procedures that are feasible and compatible with clinical practice is not limited to trials of complex interventions, and NPT may improve trial design by highlighting potential problems with recruitment or data collection, as well as ensuring the intervention has good implementation potential. SUMMARY: The NPT is a new theory which offers trialists a consistent framework that can be used to describe, assess and enhance implementation potential. We encourage trialists to consider using it in their next trial.

OBJECTIVE: To revise and expand the 1996 Osteoporosis Society of Canada clinical practice guidelines for the management of osteoporosis, incorporating recent advances in diagnosis, prevention and management of osteoporosis, and to identify and assess the evidence supporting the recommendations. OPTIONS: All aspects of osteoporosis care and its fracture complications - including classification, diagnosis, management and methods for screening, as well as prevention and reducing fracture risk - were reviewed, revised as required and expressed as a set of recommendations. OUTCOMES: Strategies for identifying and evaluating those at high risk; the use of bone mineral density and biochemical markers in diagnosis and assessing response to management; recommendations regarding nutrition and physical activity; and the selection of pharmacologic therapy for the prevention and management of osteoporosis in men and women and for osteoporosis resulting from glucocorticoid treatment. EVIDENCE: All recommendations were developed using a justifiable and reproducible process involving an explicit method for the evaluation and citation of supporting evidence. VALUES: All recommendations were reviewed by members of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada, an expert steering committee and others, including family physicians, dietitians, therapists and representatives of various medical specialties involved in osteoporosis care (geriatric medicine, rheumatology, endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, nephrology, radiology) as well as methodologists from across Canada. BENEFITS, HARM AND COSTS: Earlier diagnosis and prevention of fractures should decrease the medical, social and economic burdens of this disease. RECOMMENDATIONS: This document outlines detailed recommendations pertaining to all aspects of osteoporosis. Strategies for identifying those at increased risk (i.e., those with at least one major or 2 minor risk factors) and screening with central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at age 65 years are recommended. Bisphosphonates and raloxifene are first-line therapies in the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Estrogen and progestin/progesterone is a first-line therapy in the prevention and a second-line therapy in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Nasal calcitonin is a second-line therapy in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Although not yet approved for use in Canada, hPTH(1-34) is expected to be a first-line treatment for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis. Ipriflavone, vitamin K and fluoride are not recommended. Bisphosphonates are the first-line therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in patients requiring prolonged glucocorticoid therapy and for men with osteoporosis. Nasal or parenteral calcitonin is a first-line treatment for pain associated with acute vertebral fractures. Impact-type exercise and age-appropriate calcium and vitamin D intake are recommended for the prevention of osteoporosis. VALIDATION: All recommendations were graded according to the strength of the evidence; where the evidence was insufficient and recommendations were based on consensus opinion alone, this is indicated. These guidelines are viewed as a work in progress and will be updated periodically in response to advances in this field.

The revised version of the Theory and Practice of Online Learning, edited by Terry Anderson, brings together recent developments in both the practice and our understanding of online learning.Five years have since passed between this new edition and the first version.Five years is certainly a long time in this business as this second edition illustrates.The improvement in versatility and sophistication of the technologies that have been coming into common use has been so significant that a revisit of our knowledge of learning technologies and their application was becoming increasingly necessary.Anderson and the other authors of this text have responded to the need and have done the higher education community a great service by bringing it out in the electronic open access format under a Creative Commons License.Those of us from the other world are beneficiaries of this generosity and intellectual benevolence.Online learning has begun to embed itself as a part of our educational environment, especially in the higher education and training Theory and Practice of Online Learning

OBJECTIVES: Social prescribing is a way of linking patients in primary care with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well-being. Social prescribing programmes are being widely promoted and adopted in the UK National Health Service and so we conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for their effectiveness. SETTING/DATA SOURCES: Nine databases were searched from 2000 to January 2016 for studies conducted in the UK. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. All the searches were restricted to English language only. PARTICIPANTS: Systematic reviews and any published evaluation of programmes where patient referral was made from a primary care setting to a link worker or facilitator of social prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias for included studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis was performed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes of interest were any measures of health and well-being and/or usage of health services. RESULTS: We included a total of 15 evaluations of social prescribing programmes. Most were small scale and limited by poor design and reporting. All were rated as a having a high risk of bias. Common design issues included a lack of comparative controls, short follow-up durations, a lack of standardised and validated measuring tools, missing data and a failure to consider potential confounding factors. Despite clear methodological shortcomings, most evaluations presented positive conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Social prescribing is being widely advocated and implemented but current evidence fails to provide sufficient detail to judge either success or value for money. If social prescribing is to realise its potential, future evaluations must be comparative by design and consider when, by whom, for whom, how well and at what cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015023501.

Governments often promote inward foreign investment to encourage technology “spillovers” from foreign to domestic firms. Using panel data on Venezuelan plants, we find that foreign equity participation is positively correlated with plant productivity (the “own-plant” effect), but this relationship is only robust for small enterprises. We then test for spillovers from joint ventures to plants with no foreign investment. Foreign investment negatively affects the productivity of domestically owned plants. The net impact of foreign investment, taking into account these two offsetting effects, is quite small. The gains from foreign investment appear to be entirely captured by joint ventures. (JEL F2, O1, O3).