De-implementation: A concept analysis

Michele J. Upvall, Annette Bourgault

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this concept analysis is to explore the meaning of de-implementation and provide a definition that can be used by researchers and clinicians to facilitate evidence-based practice. Background: De-implementation is a relatively unknown process overshadowed by the novelty of introducing new ideas and techniques into practice. Few studies have addressed the challenge of de-implementation and the cognitive processes involved when terminating harmful or unnecessary practices. Also, confusion exists regarding the myriad of terms used to describe de-implementation processes. Design: Walker and Avant's method (2011) for describing concepts was used to clarify de-implementation. Data source: A database search limited to academic journals yielded 281 publications representing basic research, study protocols, and editorials/commentaries from implementation science experts. After applying exclusion criterion of English language only and eliminating overlap between databases, 41 articles were selected for review. Review methods: Literature review and synthesis provided a concept analysis and a distinct definition of de-implementation. Results: De-implementation was defined as the process of identifying and removing harmful, non–cost-effective, or ineffective practices based on tradition and without adequate scientific support. Conclusions: The analysis provided further refinement of de-implementation as a significant concept for ongoing theory development in implementation science and clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)376-382
Number of pages7
JournalNursing Forum
Volume53
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Fingerprint

Databases
Confusion
Evidence-Based Practice
Information Storage and Retrieval
Publications
Language
Research Personnel
Research

Keywords

  • concept analysis
  • de-adoption
  • de-implementation
  • un-diffusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Upvall, M. J., & Bourgault, A. (2018). De-implementation: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 53(3), 376-382. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12256

De-implementation : A concept analysis. / Upvall, Michele J.; Bourgault, Annette.

In: Nursing Forum, Vol. 53, No. 3, 01.07.2018, p. 376-382.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Upvall, MJ & Bourgault, A 2018, 'De-implementation: A concept analysis', Nursing Forum, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 376-382. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12256
Upvall, Michele J. ; Bourgault, Annette. / De-implementation : A concept analysis. In: Nursing Forum. 2018 ; Vol. 53, No. 3. pp. 376-382.
@article{d7bbfc43848a451ba85ecf5c6944c878,
title = "De-implementation: A concept analysis",
abstract = "Aim: The purpose of this concept analysis is to explore the meaning of de-implementation and provide a definition that can be used by researchers and clinicians to facilitate evidence-based practice. Background: De-implementation is a relatively unknown process overshadowed by the novelty of introducing new ideas and techniques into practice. Few studies have addressed the challenge of de-implementation and the cognitive processes involved when terminating harmful or unnecessary practices. Also, confusion exists regarding the myriad of terms used to describe de-implementation processes. Design: Walker and Avant's method (2011) for describing concepts was used to clarify de-implementation. Data source: A database search limited to academic journals yielded 281 publications representing basic research, study protocols, and editorials/commentaries from implementation science experts. After applying exclusion criterion of English language only and eliminating overlap between databases, 41 articles were selected for review. Review methods: Literature review and synthesis provided a concept analysis and a distinct definition of de-implementation. Results: De-implementation was defined as the process of identifying and removing harmful, non–cost-effective, or ineffective practices based on tradition and without adequate scientific support. Conclusions: The analysis provided further refinement of de-implementation as a significant concept for ongoing theory development in implementation science and clinical practice.",
keywords = "concept analysis, de-adoption, de-implementation, un-diffusion",
author = "Upvall, {Michele J.} and Annette Bourgault",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/nuf.12256",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "376--382",
journal = "Nursing Forum",
issn = "0029-6473",
publisher = "Nursecom Publication",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - De-implementation

T2 - A concept analysis

AU - Upvall, Michele J.

AU - Bourgault, Annette

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Aim: The purpose of this concept analysis is to explore the meaning of de-implementation and provide a definition that can be used by researchers and clinicians to facilitate evidence-based practice. Background: De-implementation is a relatively unknown process overshadowed by the novelty of introducing new ideas and techniques into practice. Few studies have addressed the challenge of de-implementation and the cognitive processes involved when terminating harmful or unnecessary practices. Also, confusion exists regarding the myriad of terms used to describe de-implementation processes. Design: Walker and Avant's method (2011) for describing concepts was used to clarify de-implementation. Data source: A database search limited to academic journals yielded 281 publications representing basic research, study protocols, and editorials/commentaries from implementation science experts. After applying exclusion criterion of English language only and eliminating overlap between databases, 41 articles were selected for review. Review methods: Literature review and synthesis provided a concept analysis and a distinct definition of de-implementation. Results: De-implementation was defined as the process of identifying and removing harmful, non–cost-effective, or ineffective practices based on tradition and without adequate scientific support. Conclusions: The analysis provided further refinement of de-implementation as a significant concept for ongoing theory development in implementation science and clinical practice.

AB - Aim: The purpose of this concept analysis is to explore the meaning of de-implementation and provide a definition that can be used by researchers and clinicians to facilitate evidence-based practice. Background: De-implementation is a relatively unknown process overshadowed by the novelty of introducing new ideas and techniques into practice. Few studies have addressed the challenge of de-implementation and the cognitive processes involved when terminating harmful or unnecessary practices. Also, confusion exists regarding the myriad of terms used to describe de-implementation processes. Design: Walker and Avant's method (2011) for describing concepts was used to clarify de-implementation. Data source: A database search limited to academic journals yielded 281 publications representing basic research, study protocols, and editorials/commentaries from implementation science experts. After applying exclusion criterion of English language only and eliminating overlap between databases, 41 articles were selected for review. Review methods: Literature review and synthesis provided a concept analysis and a distinct definition of de-implementation. Results: De-implementation was defined as the process of identifying and removing harmful, non–cost-effective, or ineffective practices based on tradition and without adequate scientific support. Conclusions: The analysis provided further refinement of de-implementation as a significant concept for ongoing theory development in implementation science and clinical practice.

KW - concept analysis

KW - de-adoption

KW - de-implementation

KW - un-diffusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046084238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046084238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/nuf.12256

DO - 10.1111/nuf.12256

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85046084238

VL - 53

SP - 376

EP - 382

JO - Nursing Forum

JF - Nursing Forum

SN - 0029-6473

IS - 3

ER -