Methoden vergleichen
Prüfen Sie die ausgewählten Methoden nebeneinander; abweichende Zeilen sind hervorgehoben.
| Hochskalierung von Gesundheitsinterventionen× | Implementationsergebnis-Taxonomie× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fachgebiet | Implementierungsforschung | Implementierungsforschung |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Entstehungsjahr≠ | 2007 | 2011 |
| Urheber≠ | Simmons, R., Fajans, P., Ghiron, L. (World Health Organization) | Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., et al. |
| Typ≠ | Framework | Taxonomy |
| Wegweisende Quelle≠ | Simmons, R., Fajans, P., & Ghiron, L. (Eds.). (2007). Scaling Up Health Service Delivery: From Pilot Innovations to Policies and Programmes. World Health Organization, Geneva. link ↗ | Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G. A., Bunger, A., ... & Rojas, D. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76. DOI ↗ |
| Aliasnamen≠ | scaling up, expansion, scale, dissemination | implementation outcomes, Proctor framework, implementation success measures |
| Verwandt | 5 | 5 |
| Zusammenfassung≠ | Scaling Up is the deliberate expansion of successful health interventions from pilot sites to entire health systems, regions, or countries. Formalized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Simmons et al. (2007), scaling up is distinct from simple dissemination; it requires systematic planning, financial modeling, capacity building, and policy alignment to ensure interventions work at scale. A pilot that succeeds brilliantly with champion leadership, dedicated funding, and motivated staff may fail when scaled to routine settings with limited resources. Scaling Up frameworks help practitioners anticipate and overcome these challenges. | The Implementation Outcome Taxonomy is a framework defining eight measurable dimensions for assessing implementation success: Acceptability, Adoption, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Fidelity, Implementation Cost, Penetration, and Sustainability. Developed by Proctor et al. (2011), it provides a standardized vocabulary and measurement approach to distinguish implementation process outcomes (how well was the intervention delivered?) from clinical outcomes (did patients get better?). This taxonomy is foundational to implementation science because it acknowledges that an evidence-based intervention can be effective (clinical outcome) but poorly implemented (implementation outcome), or feasible to deliver but not adopted by organizations. |
| ScholarGateDatensatz ↗ |
|
|