Finding the right dose: a scoping review examining facilitation as an implementation strategy for evidence-based stroke care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting interventions that improve outcomes for patients with stroke, their implementation remains suboptimal. Facilitation can support implementation of research into clinical practice by helping people develop the strategies to implement change. However, variability in the amount (dose) and type of facilitation activities/facilitator roles that make up the facilitation strategies (content), may affect the effectiveness of facilitation. This review aimed to determine if, and how, facilitation dose is measured or reported and the type of facilitation strategies used to support adoption of stroke interventions in hospitals and subacute settings. We also assessed whether the included studies had reporting checklists or guidelines. METHODS: The scoping review was based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Cochrane, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify randomised trials and quasi-experimental studies of stroke interventions published between January 2017 and July 2023. Accompanying publications (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods or process evaluation papers) from eligible studies were also included. Narrative data synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Ten studies (23 papers) from 649 full-text papers met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies reported the total facilitation dose, measured as the frequency and duration of facilitation encounters. Authors of the remaining eight studies reported only the frequency and/or duration of varying facilitation activities but not the total dose. The facilitation activities included remote external facilitator support via ongoing telecommunication (phone calls, emails, teleconferences), continuous engagement from on-site internal facilitators, face-to-face workshops and/or education sessions from external or internal facilitators. Facilitator roles were broad: site-specific briefing, action planning and/or goal setting; identifying enablers and barriers to change; coaching, training, education or feedback; and network support. Only two studies included reporting checklists/guidelines to support researchers to describe interventions and implementation studies in sufficient detail to enable replication. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of information on the measurement of facilitation dose and reporting on specific details of facilitation activities in stroke implementation studies. Detailed reporting of dose and content is needed to improve the scientific basis of facilitation as strategic support to enable improvements to stroke care. Development of a standardised measurement approach for facilitation dose would inform future research and translation of findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".