« Back to Assessment Instruments
Qualitative/Quantitative:
Type of Instrument:
Number of Items:
Not FoundSubscale Information:
Background
General Impressions
General Mental Health SystemsLanguage Availability:
Brief Description:
The PARiHS framework represents the complexities of implementing evidence into practice. The unique characteristic of the PARiHS framework was that it proposed a three-dimensional framework within which to interpret successful implementation, arguing that elements could be located on a continuum of "high" to "low" evidence and context. Website:
Not FoundCiting Literature - Development/Original:
Harvey, G., & Kitson, A. (2016). PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implementation science : IS, 11, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0398-2. PMID: 27013464 PMCID: PMC4807546.
Kitson, A. L., Rycroft-Malone, J., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., Seers, K., & Titchen, A. (2008). Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. Implementation science : IS, 3, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-1. PMID: 18179688 PMCID: PMC2235887.
Harvey, G., Kitson, A., & Harvey, G. (2015). Implementing evidence-based practice in healthcare. Taylor & Francis.
Sullivan, J. L., Kim, B., Miller, C. J., Elwy, A. R., Drummond, K. L., Connolly, S. L., Riendeau, R. P., & Bauer, M. S. (2021). Collaborative chronic care model implementation within outpatient behavioral health care teams: qualitative results from a multisite trial using implementation facilitation. Implementation science communications, 2(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00133-w. PMID: 33762023 PMCID: PMC7992349.Citing Literature - Empirical Use/Application:
Kim, B., Sullivan, J. L., Drummond, K. L., Connolly, S. L., Miller, C. J., Weaver, K., & Bauer, M. S. (2023). Interdisciplinary behavioral health provider perceptions of implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model: an i-PARIHS-guided qualitative study. Implementation science communications, 4(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-023-00407-5. PMID: 36998010 PMCID: PMC10061893.Version:
Not Found
i-PARiHS Interview Guide
Qualitative/Quantitative:
The assessment instrument uses quantitative and/or qualitative data
- Qualitative
Type of Instrument:
The type of the assessment instrument
- Individual Interview
Number of Items:
Number of items in the assessment instrument
Not FoundSubscale Information:
Names of each of the subscales and the number of items for each of the subscales
BackgroundGeneral Impressions
General Mental Health Systems
Language Availability:
Language(s) in which the assessment instrument is available
- English
Brief Description:
Brief summary description of assessment instrument
The PARiHS framework represents the complexities of implementing evidence into practice. The unique characteristic of the PARiHS framework was that it proposed a three-dimensional framework within which to interpret successful implementation, arguing that elements could be located on a continuum of "high" to "low" evidence and context. Website:
Website providing access to and/or describing the assessment instrument
Not FoundInstrument and/or related documentation:
Citing Literature - Development/Original:
Reference for publication describing the development of the assessment instrument
Harvey, G., & Kitson, A. (2016). PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implementation science : IS, 11, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0398-2. PMID: 27013464 PMCID: PMC4807546.Kitson, A. L., Rycroft-Malone, J., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., Seers, K., & Titchen, A. (2008). Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. Implementation science : IS, 3, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-1. PMID: 18179688 PMCID: PMC2235887.
Harvey, G., Kitson, A., & Harvey, G. (2015). Implementing evidence-based practice in healthcare. Taylor & Francis.
Sullivan, J. L., Kim, B., Miller, C. J., Elwy, A. R., Drummond, K. L., Connolly, S. L., Riendeau, R. P., & Bauer, M. S. (2021). Collaborative chronic care model implementation within outpatient behavioral health care teams: qualitative results from a multisite trial using implementation facilitation. Implementation science communications, 2(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00133-w. PMID: 33762023 PMCID: PMC7992349.
Citing Literature - Empirical Use/Application:
Reference for publications on the application of the assessment instrument
Kim, B., Sullivan, J. L., Drummond, K. L., Connolly, S. L., Miller, C. J., Weaver, K., & Bauer, M. S. (2023). Interdisciplinary behavioral health provider perceptions of implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model: an i-PARIHS-guided qualitative study. Implementation science communications, 4(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-023-00407-5. PMID: 36998010 PMCID: PMC10061893.Version:
Number/name of the most recent version of the assessment instrument
Not FoundRelated Instruments:
Not FoundImplementation Science Considerations
- ACE Star Model of Knowledge Transformation
- Active Implementation Framework
- Adaptation in dissemination and implementation science
- Adherence Optimization Framework
- Advancing health disparities research within the health care system
- Availability, Responsiveness & Continuity (ARC): An Organizational & Community Intervention Model
- Behaviour Change Wheel
- Blueprint for Dissemination
- CDC DHAP's Research-to-Practice Framework
- Caledonian Practice Development Model
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Translation within the Research Cycle Model or Knowledge Action Model
- Choosing Wisely Deimplementation Framework
- Collaborative Model for Knowledge Translation Between Research and Practice Settings
- Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR)
- Conceptual Framework For The Comparative Analysis of Policy Change
- Conceptual Framework for Research Knowledge Transfer and Utilization
- Conceptual Model of Implementation Research
- Conceptual Model of Knowledge Utilization
- Conceptualizing Dissemination Research and Activity: Canadian Heart Health Initiative
- Conduct and Utilization of Research in Nursing (CURN)
- Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
- Convergent Diffusion and Social Marketing Approach for Dissemination
- Coordinated Implementation Model
- Critical Realism & the Arts Research Utilization Model (CRARIUM)
- Davis' Pathman-PRECEED Model
- Designing and evaluating interventions to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health care
- Dissemination and Implementation Framework for an Early Childhood Obesity Prevention Program
- Dissemination of Evidence-based Interventions to Prevent Obesity
- Dynamic Sustainability Framework
- EMTReK - Evidence-based Model for the Transfer and Exchange of Research Knowledge
- EQ-DI Framework
- Effective Dissemination Strategies
- Evidence Integration Triangle
- Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) model (Conceptual Model of Evidence-based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors)
- Facilitating Adoption of Best Practices (FAB) Model
- Framework for Analyzing Adoption of Complex Health Innovations
- Framework for Enhancing the Value of Research for Dissemination and Implementation
- Framework for Knowledge Translation
- Framework for Spread
- Framework for Translating Evidence into Action
- Framework for the Dissemination & Utilization of Research for Health-Care Policy & Practice
- Framework for the Transfer of Patient Safety Research into Practice
- Framework of Dissemination in Health Services Intervention Research
- General theory of implementation
- Generic Implementation Framework
- Greenhalgh Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations
- Health Equity Implementation Framework
- Health Promotion Research Center Framework
- Health Promotion Technology Transfer Process
- Implementation Effectiveness Model
- Interacting Elements of Integrating Science, Policy, and Practice
- Interactive Systems Framework
- Intervention Mapping
- Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice
- Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model and Guidelines
- Kingdon's Multiple-Streams Framework
- Knowledge Exchange Framework
- Knowledge Transfer and Exchange
- Marketing and Distribution System for Public Heatlh
- Model for Improving the Dissemination of Nursing Research
- Model for Predictors of Adoption
- Organizational Theory of Innovation Implementation
- Pathways to Evidence Informed Policy
- Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM)
- Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2
- Precede-Proceed Model
- Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS)
- Pronovost's 4E's Process Theory
- Push-Pull Capacity Model
- RAND Model of Persuasive Communication and Diffusion of Medical Innovation
- RE-AIM 2.0/Contextually Expanded RE-AIM
- Real-World Dissemination
- Replicating Effective Programs Framework
- Research Development Dissemination and Utilization Framework
- Six-Step Framework for International Physical Activity Dissemination
- Stetler Model of Research Utilization
- Stirman framework and coding system for modifications and adaptations of evidence-based interventions
- Technology Transfer Model
- Theoretical Domains Framework
- Transcreation Framework for Community-engaged Behavioral Interventions to Reduce Health Disparities
- Utilization-Focused Surveillance Framework
- Weiner organizational readiness
- conNECT Framework
- Adaptation
- Adoption
- Fidelity
- Implementation
- Use evaluative and iterative strategies
- Implementation
Constructs Assessed:
Constructs assessed by the assessment instrument (linked to constructs included in the D&I models webtool)Theories, Models, Frameworks Relevant:
Implementation Outcomes:
The relevance of the assessment instrument to various implementation outcomesImplementation Strategies:
The implementation strategy/ies evaluated by the assessment instrumentPhase of Implementation Process:
Phase of implementation process when the assessment instrument can be used
Intended Focus
- Individual (Patient, Community Member)
- Implementer
- Organizational
- Clinician
- Administrator
- Public Health Practitioner
- Clinical Outpatient
Levels of Data Collection:
The level(s) from which the assessment instrument collects dataIntended Priority Population:
Intended priority population from whom data are collected using the assessment instrumentIntended Priority Setting:
Intended priority setting in which the assessment instrument is usedPolicy:
Not FoundAssessment instrument is relevant to policyEquity Focus:
Not Found
Psychometric Properties
Scoring:
NoThe assessment instrument produces a composite scoreNorms:
Not FoundMeasures of central tendency and distribution for the total score are based on small, medium, large sample sizeResponsiveness:
Not FoundThe ability of the assessment instrument to detect change over time (i.e., sensitivity to change or intervention effects).Validity:
Not FoundThe extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure accurately.Reliability:
Not FoundThe extent to which results are consistent results over time, across raters, across settings, or across items intended to measure the same thing.Factor Analysis:
Not FoundA statistical method that uses the correlation between observed variables to identify common factors.
Pragmatic Properties
- Medium: Asyncronous collection of data
Time to Administer:
Not FoundThe amount of time required to complete the assessment instrumentSecondary Data:
Not FoundCost:
FreeCost associated with access to assessment instrument (Some insturments might require login.)Literacy:
Not FoundReadability of the items reported on.Interpretation:
Not FoundExpertise needed for interpretation of data is reported.Training:
Not FoundExpertise needed to use the assessment instrument is reportedResources Required to Administer:
Not FoundResources needed to administer the assessment instrument (FTE for data collector, equipment, etc.)User Guidance:
Not FoundGuides are provided to support administration of assessment instrument/data collection, and/or analysis of data from the assessment instrument, and/or interpretation of data, and/or action/decision on how to use dataObtrusiveness:
Degree of intrusion the participants will experience because of the data collection when using the assessment instrument (e.g., assessment instruments that rely on use of secondary data or automated data will be less obtrusive)Interactivity:
Not FoundData collection and/or result generation involves interactive components.
Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write one.