Characterising processes and outcomes of tailoring implementation strategies in healthcare: a protocol for a scoping review

Fiona Riordan; Claire Kerins; Nickola Pallin; Bianca Albers; Lauren Clack; Eimear Morrissey; Geoffrey M Curran; Cara C Lewis; Byron J Powell; Justin Presseau; Luke Wolfenden; Sheena M McHugh

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13507.2

Characterising processes and outcomes of tailoring implementation strategies in healthcare: a protocol for a scoping review

HRB Open Res. 2022 Sep 20:5:17. doi: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13507.2. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland.
² Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
³ School of Medicine, School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
⁴ Department of Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
⁵ Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
⁶ Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
⁷ Clinical Epidemiology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
⁸ School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle,, New South Wales, Australia.

Abstract

Background: Tailoring strategies to target the salient barriers to and enablers of implementation is considered a critical step in supporting successful delivery of evidence based interventions in healthcare. Theory, evidence, and stakeholder engagement are considered key ingredients in the process however, these ingredients can be combined in different ways. There is no consensus on the definition of tailoring or on a single method for tailoring strategies to optimize impact, ensure transparency, and facilitate replication. Aim: The purpose of this scoping review is to describe how tailoring has been undertaken within healthcare to answer questions about how it has been conceptualised, described, and conducted in practice, and to identify research gaps. Methods: The review will be conducted in accordance with best practice guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used to guide the reporting. Searches will be conducted of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, from 2005 to present. Reference lists of included articles will be searched. Grey literature will be searched on Google Scholar. Screening and data extraction will be conducted by two or more members of the research team, with any discrepancies resolved by consensus discussion with a third reviewer. Initial analysis will be quantitative involving a descriptive numerical summary of the characteristics of the studies and the tailoring process. Qualitative content analysis aligned to the research questions will also be conducted, and data managed using NVivo where applicable. This scoping review is pre-registered with the Open Science Framework. Conclusions: The findings will serve as a resource for implementation researchers and practitioners to guide future research in this field and facilitate systematic, transparent, and replicable development of tailored implementation strategies.

Keywords: implementation science; implementation strategies; protocol; scoping review; tailoring.

Grants and funding

Health Research Board [HRB RL-2020-004].