Premium
理解环境:概念分析
Author(s) -
Squires Janet E.,
Graham Ian,
Bashir Kainat,
NadalinPenno Letitia,
Lavis John,
Francis Jill,
Curran Janet,
Grimshaw Jeremy M.,
Brehaut Jamie,
Ivers Noah,
Michie Susan,
Hillmer Michael,
Noseworthy Thomas,
Vine Jocelyn,
Demery Varin Melissa,
Aloisio Laura D.,
Coughlin Mary,
Hutchinson Alison M.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of advanced nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.948
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1365-2648
pISSN - 0309-2402
DOI - 10.1111/jan.14165
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , clarity , identification (biology) , formal concept analysis , computer science , context analysis , data science , chemistry , botany , linguistics , algorithm , government (linguistics) , biology , paleontology , biochemistry , philosophy
Abstract Aims To conduct a concept analysis of clinical practice contexts (work environments) in health care. Background Context is increasingly recognized as important to the development, delivery, and understanding of implementation strategies; however, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is lacking. Design Modified Walker and Avant concept analysis comprised of five steps: (1) concept selection; (2) determination of aims; (3) identification of uses of context; (4) determination of its defining attributes; and (5) definition of its empirical referents. Methods A wide range of databases were systematically searched from inception to August 2014. Empirical articles were included if a definition and/or attributes of context were reported. Theoretical articles were included if they reported a model, theory, or framework of context or where context was a component. Double independent screening and data extraction were conducted. Analysis was iterative, involving organizing and reorganizing until a framework of domains, attributes. and features of context emerged. Result We identified 15,972 references, of which 70 satisfied our inclusion criteria. In total, 201 unique features of context were identified, of these 89 were shared (reported in two or more studies). The 89 shared features were grouped into 21 attributes of context which were further categorized into six domains of context. Conclusion This study resulted in a framework of domains, attributes and features of context. These attributes and features, if assessed and used to tailor implementation activities, hold promise for improved research implementation in clinical practice.