Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
Hvidovre Hospital - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Co-designing implementation strategies for the WALK-Cph intervention in Denmark aimed at increasing mobility in acutely hospitalized older patients: a qualitative analysis of selected strategies and their justifications

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Implementing a new emergency department: a qualitative study of health professionals' change responses and perceptions

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Adaptations and modifications to a co-designed intervention and its clinical implementation: a qualitative study in Denmark

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Understanding what matters most to patients in acute care in seven countries, using the flash mob study design.

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Post-hospital medical respite care for homeless people in Denmark: a randomized controlled trial and cost-utility analysis

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

BACKGROUND: Selecting appropriate strategies to target barriers to implementing interventions represents a considerable challenge in implementation research and practice. The aim was to investigate what categories of implementation strategies were selected by health care practitioners and their managers in a co-design process and how they justified these strategies aimed at facilitating the implementation of the WALK-Cph intervention.

METHODS: The study used a qualitative research design to explore what implementation strategies were selected and the justifications for selecting these strategies. Workshops were used because this qualitative method is particularly well suited for studying co-design processes that involve substantial attention to social interaction and the context. Data were 1) analyzed deductively based on the Proctor et al. taxonomy of implementation strategies, 2) categorized in accordance with the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies by Powell et al., and 3) analyzed to examine the justification for the selected strategies by the Proctor et al. framework for justifications of implementation strategies.

RESULTS: Thirteen different types of implementation strategies were chosen across two hospitals. The deductive analysis showed that selection of implementation strategies was based on pragmatic and theoretical justifications. The contents of the two types of justifications were thematized into nine subthemes.

CONCLUSION: This study contributes with knowledge about categories and justification of implementation strategies selected in a co-design process. In this study, implementation strategies were selected through pragmatic and theoretical justifications. This points to a challenge in balancing strategies based on practice-based and research-based knowledge and thereby selection of strategies with or without proven effectiveness.

Original languageEnglish
Article number8
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume22
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)1-16
Number of pages16
ISSN1472-6963
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Jan 2022

Bibliographical note

© 2021. The Author(s).

    Research areas

  • Delivery of Health Care, Denmark, Hospitalization, Humans, Qualitative Research

ID: 70399637