Design Quality & Packaging

From CFIR Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Design Quality & Packaging
Taxonomy
Domain
Intervention Characteristics
Siblings
Adaptability
Complexity
Cost
Design Quality & Packaging
Evidence Strength & Quality
Intervention Source
Relative Advantage
Trialability
Measurement maturity
Quantitative tools


Contents

Version 1.0

Perceived excellence in how the intervention is bundled, presented, and assembled.

Description

Perceived excellence in how the intervention is bundled, presented, and assembled[1].

Rationale for inclusion

Excellence in how the intervention is bundled, presented, and assembled[1]. This construct was not included in Greenhalgh, et al’s model but is included in Grol and Wensing’s list of innovation characteristics[2]. Packaging is related to how the intervention is bundled, presented, or assembled and even how accessible it is for users. When components are more easily accessible to users, it promotes use of the new procedures[3]. An unreliable or imperfectly designed intervention will undermine success[1]. When intervention quality is perceived to be poor by users, there are negative consequences for employee satisfaction and intervention use[1][4].

Measurement

Qualitative codebook guidelines

Inclusion criteria

Include statements regarding the quality of the materials and packaging.

  • “We got approval to use the new drapes for inserting catheters but we have worked for over a year to actually get them bundled into the IV kits.”
  • “The data is in there but the reporting modules don't work.”
  • “The idea was good but our money people just went and bought the cheapest version and now we have to throw half of them away.”



Exclusion criteria

Exclude statements regarding the presence or absence of materials and code to Available Resources.

Exclude statements regarding the receipt of materials as an engagement strategy and code to Engaging.



Quantitative measures

Attachments

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Klein KJ, Conn AB, Sorra JS: Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. J Appl Psychol 2001, 86:811-824.
  2. Grol RP, Bosch MC, Hulscher ME, Eccles MP, Wensing M: Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q 2007, 85:93-138.
  3. Graham ID, Logan J: Innovations in knowledge transfer and continuity of care. Can J Nurs Res 2004, 36:89-103.
  4. Helfrich CD, Weiner BJ, McKinney MM, Minasian L: Determinants of implementation effectiveness: adapting a framework for complex innovations. Med Care Res Rev 2007, 64:279-303.
Personal tools
Etiquette and Help