Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments - PubMed (original) (raw)

Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments

Isomi M Miake-Lye et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020.

Abstract

Background: Organizational readiness assessments have a history of being developed as important support tools for successful implementation. However, it remains unclear how best to operationalize readiness across varied projects or settings. We conducted a synthesis and content analysis of published readiness instruments to compare how investigators have operationalized the concept of organizational readiness for change.

Methods: We identified readiness assessments using a systematic review and update search. We mapped individual assessment items to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which identifies five domains affecting implementation (outer setting, inner setting, intervention characteristics, characteristics of individuals, and implementation process) and multiple constructs within each domain.

Results: Of 1370 survey items, 897 (68%) mapped to the CFIR domain of inner setting, most commonly related to constructs of readiness for implementation (n = 220); networks and communication (n = 207); implementation climate (n = 204); structural characteristics (n = 139); and culture (n = 93). Two hundred forty-two items (18%) mapped to characteristics of individuals (mainly other personal attributes [n = 157] and self-efficacy [n = 52]); 80 (6%) mapped to outer setting; 51 (4%) mapped to implementation process; 40 (3%) mapped to intervention characteristics; and 60 (4%) did not map to CFIR constructs. Instruments were typically tailored to specific interventions or contexts.

Discussion: Available readiness instruments predominantly focus on contextual factors within the organization and characteristics of individuals, but the specificity of most assessment items suggests a need to tailor items to the specific scenario in which an assessment is fielded. Readiness assessments must bridge the gap between measuring a theoretical construct and factors of importance to a particular implementation.

Keywords: Consolidated framework for implementation research; Content analysis; Implementation research; Organizational readiness for change; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Literature Flow

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Items Mapped to CFIR

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Heat Map of Assessment Uses to CFIR

References

    1. Larsen KR, Voronovich ZA, Cook PF, Pedro LW. Addicted to constructs: science in reverse? Addiction. 2013;108(9):1532–1533. doi: 10.1111/add.12227. -DOI -PubMed
    1. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x. -DOI -PMC -PubMed
    1. Thorndike EL. An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. New York: Teacher's college, Columbia University; 1913.
    1. Kelley TL. Interpretation of educational measurements. 1927.
    1. Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):22. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-22. -DOI -PMC -PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources