Abstract
Aim: The aim of this research was to evaluate CAN-Implement. Pro as a structured and systematic process for planning local evidence implementation, to develop a contextual and demographic profile of potential users and assess their initial perceptions and intention to use CAN-Implement. Pro.
Methods: Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval number: H-2016-157). A descriptive cross-sectional study was undertaken to capture the demographic characteristics of participants, as well as their initial perceptions of, and intention to use, the software for guideline adaptation projects.
Results: A total of 21 individuals representing guideline groups completed the survey. Only 43% had taken part in at least one previous implementation project. Thirty-three percent reported embarking on their first implementation project; 24% had yet to participate in an evidence implementation project. Nursing was the most highly referenced profession at 75%, followed by medical specialties (40%); two respondents indicated allied health professions were included in their implementation group. Respondents represented countries or regions of high and upper middle income as classified by the WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. The majority (67%) found CAN-Implement. Pro to be well-organized, easy to navigate and reliable. Most (80%) also indicated they were more likely to return to the software than not; 20% were neutral. In terms of overall satisfaction, more than half (60%) were very satisfied or satisfied, a third (33%) was neutral and 7% were dissatisfied. Over 66% of the respondents considered their group to be familiar with the knowledge-to-action model. A slightly higher percentage (74%) reported software based upon the knowledge-to-action model had a strong conceptual framework. In terms of evidence informed functionality, 75% of the respondents concluded that the software could assist guideline groups to provide structure for their implementation planning; a similar proportion (75%) indicated that the software would also enhance or improve coordination, communication and logistics management in guideline-related implementation projects. Participants were familiar with a range of resources, models, theories and frameworks for implementation, implementation planning and guideline adaptation. The most common frameworks were related to behavioural theories or variations of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework.
Conclusion: Eighty percent of the respondents indicated that their group would be likely to use the software to guide implementation planning in future projects, whereas 20% were neutral. In terms of expectations for contemporary software, multimedia resources rated highly, as did interactive components within the knowledge-to-action model.