PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Systems science offers methods for designing population health interventions while implementation science provides specific guidance for successful implementation. Integrating systems and implementation science may strengthen implementation and enhance and sustain systemic change to achieve system-level outcomes. Little is known about the extent to which these two approaches have been integrated to date. This review aimed to identify and synthesise the peer-reviewed literature that has reported the combined use of systems thinking approaches and implementation science constructs (within the same study), to deliver population health interventions.
METHODS: A systematic literature search of peer-reviewed original research was conducted across six databases from 2009 to 2021. Journal manuscripts were included if they: (1) reported on a population health study conducted in a community, (2) reported the use of a systems method in the design of the intervention, and (3) used an implementation science theory, framework or model in the delivery of the intervention. Data extracted related to the specific systems methods and definitions and implementation science constructs used. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess study quality.
RESULTS: Of the 9086 manuscripts returned, 320 manuscripts were included for full-text review. Of these, 17 manuscripts that reported on 14 studies were included in the final extraction. The most frequently reported systems methods were a \'whole of community systems approach\' (n = 4/14) and \'community-based system dynamics\' (n = 2/14). Nineteen different implementation science theories, frameworks and models were used for intervention delivery, with RE-AIM being the only framework used in more than one study.
CONCLUSIONS: There are few published peer-reviewed studies using systems thinking and implementation science for designing and delivering population health interventions. An exploration of synergies is worthwhile to operationalise alignment and improve implementation of systems thinking approaches. Review protocol registration PROSPERO CRD42021250419.
METHODS: A systematic literature search of peer-reviewed original research was conducted across six databases from 2009 to 2021. Journal manuscripts were included if they: (1) reported on a population health study conducted in a community, (2) reported the use of a systems method in the design of the intervention, and (3) used an implementation science theory, framework or model in the delivery of the intervention. Data extracted related to the specific systems methods and definitions and implementation science constructs used. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess study quality.
RESULTS: Of the 9086 manuscripts returned, 320 manuscripts were included for full-text review. Of these, 17 manuscripts that reported on 14 studies were included in the final extraction. The most frequently reported systems methods were a \'whole of community systems approach\' (n = 4/14) and \'community-based system dynamics\' (n = 2/14). Nineteen different implementation science theories, frameworks and models were used for intervention delivery, with RE-AIM being the only framework used in more than one study.
CONCLUSIONS: There are few published peer-reviewed studies using systems thinking and implementation science for designing and delivering population health interventions. An exploration of synergies is worthwhile to operationalise alignment and improve implementation of systems thinking approaches. Review protocol registration PROSPERO CRD42021250419.
摘要：
背景：系统科学提供了设计人口健康干预措施的方法，而实施科学为成功实施提供了具体指导。整合系统和实施科学可以加强实施，加强和维持系统变革，以实现系统一级的成果。迄今为止，对这两种方法的整合程度知之甚少。这篇综述旨在识别和综合同行评审的文献，这些文献报道了系统思维方法和实施科学构造的结合使用（在同一研究中）。提供人口健康干预措施。
方法：从2009年到2021年，在六个数据库中对同行评审的原始研究进行了系统的文献检索。包括期刊手稿，如果它们：（1）在社区中进行的人口健康研究报告，（2）报告了在干预设计中使用了系统方法，(3)使用实施科学理论，干预交付中的框架或模型。提取的数据与使用的特定系统方法和定义以及实现科学构造有关。使用混合方法评估工具（MMAT）评估研究质量。
结果：在返回的9086份手稿中，包括320份手稿进行全文审查。其中,最终提取中包括了14项研究报告的17份手稿。最常报告的系统方法是“整个社区系统方法”（n=4/14）和“基于社区的系统动力学”（n=2/14）。19种不同的实施科学理论，框架和模型用于干预交付，RE-AIM是不止一项研究中使用的唯一框架。
结论：很少有发表的同行评审研究使用系统思维和实施科学来设计和提供人口健康干预措施。对协同作用的探索是值得的，以使一致性得以运作并改善系统思维方法的实施。审查协议注册PROSPEROCRD42021250419。
方法：从2009年到2021年，在六个数据库中对同行评审的原始研究进行了系统的文献检索。包括期刊手稿，如果它们：（1）在社区中进行的人口健康研究报告，（2）报告了在干预设计中使用了系统方法，(3)使用实施科学理论，干预交付中的框架或模型。提取的数据与使用的特定系统方法和定义以及实现科学构造有关。使用混合方法评估工具（MMAT）评估研究质量。
结果：在返回的9086份手稿中，包括320份手稿进行全文审查。其中,最终提取中包括了14项研究报告的17份手稿。最常报告的系统方法是“整个社区系统方法”（n=4/14）和“基于社区的系统动力学”（n=2/14）。19种不同的实施科学理论，框架和模型用于干预交付，RE-AIM是不止一项研究中使用的唯一框架。
结论：很少有发表的同行评审研究使用系统思维和实施科学来设计和提供人口健康干预措施。对协同作用的探索是值得的，以使一致性得以运作并改善系统思维方法的实施。审查协议注册PROSPEROCRD42021250419。
