Designing and implementing two facilitation interventions within the ‘Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE)’ study: a qualitative analysis from an external facilitators’ perspective
MetadataShow full item record
Background The ‘Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence’ study found no significant differences between sites that received two types of facilitation support and those that did not on the primary outcome of documented compliance with guideline recommendations. Process evaluation highlighted factors that influenced local, internal facilitators’ ability to enact the roles as envisaged. In this paper, the external facilitators responsible for designing and delivering the two types of facilitation intervention analyse why the interventions proved difficult to implement as expected, including the challenge of balancing fidelity and adaptation. Methods Qualitative data sources included notes from monthly internal-external facilitator teleconference meetings, from closing events for the two facilitation interventions and summary data analyses from repeated interviews with 16 internal facilitators. Deductive and inductive data analysis was led by an independent researcher to evaluate how facilitation in practice compared to the logic pathways designed to guide fidelity in the delivery of the interventions. Results The planned facilitation interventions did not work as predicted. Difficulties were encountered in each of the five elements of the logic pathway: recruitment and selection of appropriate internal facilitators, preparation for the role, ability to apply facilitation knowledge and skills at a local level, support and mentorship from external facilitators via monthly teleconferences, working collaboratively and enabling colleagues to implement guideline recommendations. Moreover, problems were cumulative and created tensions for the external facilitators in terms of balancing the logic pathway with a more real-world, flexible and iterative approach to facilitation. Conclusion Evaluating an intervention that is fluid and dynamic within the methodology of a randomised controlled trial is complex and challenging. At a practical level, relational aspects of facilitation are critically important. It is essential to recruit and retain individuals with the appropriate set of skills and characteristics, explicit support from managerial leaders and accessible mentorship from more experienced facilitators. At a methodological level, there is a need for attention to the balance between fidelity and adaptation of interventions. For future studies, we suggest a theoretical approach to fidelity, with a focus on mechanisms, informed by prospective use of process evaluation data and more detailed investigation of the context-facilitation dynamic.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE): an international cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate two models of facilitation informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework Seers, Kate; Rycroft-Malone, Jo; Cox, Karen; Crichton, Nicola J; Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor; Eldh, Ann Catrine; Estabrooks, Carole A; Harvey, Gill; Hawkes, Claire; Jones, Carys; Kitson, Alison L; McCormack, Brendan; McMullan, Christel; Mockford, Carole; Niessen, Theo; Slater, Paul; Titchen, Angie; van der Zijpp, Teatske; Wallin, Lars (BMC, 2018-11-16)Background Health care practice needs to be underpinned by high quality research evidence, so that the best possible care can be delivered. However, evidence from research is not always utilised in practice. ...
Facilitating complementary inputs and scoping economies in the joint supply of health and environmental services in Aboriginal central Australia Davies, Jocelyn; Campbell, David; Wakerman, John (2008)
Schmidt, Lisa; Miller, Julia Liliane (2009)