Cited by 27Health Policy Implementation ScienceDelphi Technique in ResearchHealth Sciences Research and Education

Stakeholders' contributions to tailored implementation programs: an observational study of group interview methods

Open access
Huntink, Elke, van Lieshout, Jan, Aakhus, Eivind, Baker, Richard, Flottorp, Signe, Godycki-Cwirko, Maciek, Jäger, Cornelia, Kowalczyk, Anna +2 more·2014·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tailored strategies to implement evidence-based practice can be generated in several ways. In this study, we explored the usefulness of group interviews for generating these strategies, focused on improving healthcare for patients with chronic diseases. METHODS: Participants included at least four categories of stakeholders (researchers, quality officers, health professionals, and external stakeholders) in five countries. Interviews comprised brainstorming followed by a structured interview and focused on different chronic conditions in each country. We compared the numbers and types of strategies between stakeholder categories and between interview phases. We also determined which strategies were actually used in tailored intervention programs. RESULTS: In total, 127 individuals participated in 25 group interviews across five countries. Brainstorming generated 8 to 120 strategies per group; structured interviews added 0 to 55 strategies. Healthcare professionals and researchers provided the largest numbers of strategies. The type of strategies for improving healthcare practice did not differ systematically between stakeholder groups in four of the five countries. In three out of five countries, all components of the chosen intervention programs were mentioned by the group of researchers. CONCLUSIONS: Group interviews with different stakeholder categories produced many strategies for tailored implementation of evidence-based practice, of which the content was largely similar across stakeholder categories.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-014-0185-x

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the previous review, the rigour of the determinants analyses failed to predict effectiveness.

    “However, it was difficult to judge the rigour of the analysis of determinants since little is yet known of the most useful approaches (Huntink 2014; Wensing 2014), and this variable failed to predict effectiveness.”

    From Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice (2015) · cites this paper as Huntink 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [15]Osborn AF Applied Imagination 1957 Oxford Scribner's

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huntink, E., van Lieshout, J., Aakhus, E., Baker, R., Flottorp, S., Godycki-Cwirko, M., Jäger, C., Kowalczyk, A., Szecsenyi, J., & Wensing, M.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Innlandet Hospital Trust (NO)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
  • Medical University of Lodz (PL)
Corresponding author
Wensing, Michel
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2014-12
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
185-185
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120819534
Cited by
27
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • European Commission (258837, 2007–2013, FP7 2007-2013, FP7/2007)
  • ZonMw (200310011)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
evidence-based practice, stakeholder engagement, group interviews, brainstorming, chronic disease, healthcare workers, researchers, implementation program, stakeholder categories
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Chronic Disease, Diffusion of Innovation, Health Plan Implementation, Health Policy, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Prospective Studies, Evidence-Based Practice, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review