11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Making change last? Exploring the value of sustainability approaches in healthcare: a scoping review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Numerous models, tools and frameworks have been produced to improve the sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Due to the vast number available, choosing the most appropriate one is increasingly difficult for researchers and practitioners. To understand the value of such approaches, evidence warranting their use is needed. However, there is limited understanding of how sustainability approaches have been used and how they have impacted research or practice. This review aims to consolidate evidence on the application and impact of sustainability approaches in healthcare settings.

          Methods

          A systematic scoping review was designed to search for peer-reviewed publications detailing the use of sustainability approaches in practice. A 5-stage framework for scoping reviews directed the search strategy, and quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Searches were performed through electronic citation tracking and snowballing of references. Articles were obtained through Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. Six outcome variables for sustainability were explored to ascertain impact of approaches.

          Results

          This review includes 68 articles demonstrating the application of sustainability approaches in practice. Results show an increase in the use of sustainability approaches in peer-reviewed studies. Approaches have been applied across a range of healthcare settings, including primary, secondary, tertiary and community healthcare. Approaches are used for five main purposes, namely analysis, evaluation, guidance, assessment and planning. Results outline benefits (e.g. improved conceptualisation of sustainability constructs and improved ability to interpret sustainability data) and challenges (e.g. issues with approach constructs and difficulty in application) associated with using a sustainability approach in practice. Few articles (14/68) reported the sustainability outcome variables explored; therefore, the impact of approaches on sustainability remains unclear. Additional sustainability outcome variables reported in retrieved articles are discussed.

          Conclusions

          This review provides practitioners and researchers with a consolidated evidence base on sustainability approaches. Findings highlight the remaining gaps in the literature and emphasise the need for improved rigour and reporting of sustainability approaches in research studies. To guide future assessment and study of sustainability in healthcare settings an updated list of sustainability outcome variables is proposed.

          Trial Registration

          This review was registered on the PROSPERO database CRD 42016040081 in June 2016.

          Related collections

          Most cited references112

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change

          Background Despite growth in implementation research, limited scientific attention has focused on understanding and improving sustainability of health interventions. Models of sustainability have been evolving to reflect challenges in the fit between intervention and context. Discussion We examine the development of concepts of sustainability, and respond to two frequent assumptions —'voltage drop,’ whereby interventions are expected to yield lower benefits as they move from efficacy to effectiveness to implementation and sustainability, and 'program drift,’ whereby deviation from manualized protocols is assumed to decrease benefit. We posit that these assumptions limit opportunities to improve care, and instead argue for understanding the changing context of healthcare to continuously refine and improve interventions as they are sustained. Sustainability has evolved from being considered as the endgame of a translational research process to a suggested 'adaptation phase’ that integrates and institutionalizes interventions within local organizational and cultural contexts. These recent approaches locate sustainability in the implementation phase of knowledge transfer, but still do not address intervention improvement as a central theme. We propose a Dynamic Sustainability Framework that involves: continued learning and problem solving, ongoing adaptation of interventions with a primary focus on fit between interventions and multi-level contexts, and expectations for ongoing improvement as opposed to diminishing outcomes over time. Summary A Dynamic Sustainability Framework provides a foundation for research, policy and practice that supports development and testing of falsifiable hypotheses and continued learning to advance the implementation, transportability and impact of health services research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources.

            To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by "snowballing" (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research.

              Theories and frameworks (hereafter called models) enhance dissemination and implementation (D&I) research by making the spread of evidence-based interventions more likely. This work organizes and synthesizes these models by (1) developing an inventory of models used in D&I research; (2) synthesizing this information; and (3) providing guidance on how to select a model to inform study design and execution. This review began with commonly cited models and model developers and used snowball sampling to collect models developed in any year from journal articles, presentations, and books. All models were analyzed and categorized in 2011 based on three author-defined variables: construct flexibility, focus on dissemination and/or implementation activities (D/I), and the socioecologic framework (SEF) level. Five-point scales were used to rate construct flexibility from broad to operational and D/I activities from dissemination-focused to implementation-focused. All SEF levels (system, community, organization, and individual) applicable to a model were also extracted. Models that addressed policy activities were noted. Sixty-one models were included in this review. Each of the five categories in the construct flexibility and D/I scales had at least four models. Models were distributed across all levels of the SEF; the fewest models (n=8) addressed policy activities. To assist researchers in selecting and utilizing a model throughout the research process, the authors present and explain examples of how models have been used. These findings may enable researchers to better identify and select models to inform their D&I work. Copyright © 2012 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                l.lennox@imperial.ac.uk
                alanis.linwood@gov.ky
                lynne.maher@middlemore.co.nz
                Julie.Reed@juliereedconsultancy.com
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                13 October 2020
                13 October 2020
                2020
                : 18
                : 120
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.7445.2, ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, National Institute for Health Research, , Applied Research Collaboration North West London. Imperial College London, ; 369 Fulham Road, SW10 9NH London, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Ministry of Health, Environment, Culture and Housing, George Town, Grand Cayman KY1-9000 Cayman Islands
                [3 ]GRID grid.415534.2, ISNI 0000 0004 0372 0644, Ko Awatea Health System Innovation and Improvement, , Middlemore Hospital, ; 100 Hospital Road, Otahuhu, New Zealand
                [4 ]Julie Reed Consultancy, 27 Molasses House, London, SW113TN United Kingdom
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8991-1702
                Article
                601
                10.1186/s12961-020-00601-0
                7556957
                33050921
                822ad2d5-370b-4e14-a9e6-e24c39419b74
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 30 March 2020
                : 7 July 2020
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Health & Social care
                sustainability,tools,frameworks,models,healthcare improvement,sustainability outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article