Performance anxiety in solo piano playing.

A qualitative methodology was employed in this study. Six pianists on the faculties of southwestern colleges and universities were selectively chosen for participation. A survey questionnaire and an individual interview were used to collect data in the late spring and summer of 2001. The researcher analyzed the transcripts of the interviews and codes were developed accordingly.The purpose of this study was to examine the experience of performance anxiety in solo piano playing from the perspective of the participants. Research questions focusing on the following three categories were addressed: (1) What does the experience of performance anxiety feel like to a solo pianist? (2) What are the ways in which performance anxiety manifests itself? and (3) How should performers deal with performance anxiety?The three categories of research questions were utilized for the interpretation of the findings. The symptoms of performance anxiety manifested themselves through a combination of thought processes, feelings and physiological responses, activated by the perception of a threat by the performer. Negative thoughts and feelings dominated the experience of musical performance anxiety and undermined the self-confidence level of the performer. The identity of the performer was impacted both by how the individual viewed himself or herself, as well as the result of his or her perception of how others viewed them. While the participants all had their individual ways of dealing with their experience of performance anxiety, none of the techniques worked one hundred percent of the time. The coping mechanisms employed did make a difference in the intensity of the anxiety experience

Applying KT Network Complexity to a Highly-Partnered Knowledge Transfer Effort; Comment on “Using Complexity and Network Concepts to Inform Healthcare Knowledge Translation”

The re-conceptualization of knowledge translation (KT) in Kitson and colleagues’ manuscript “Using Complexity and Network Concepts to Inform Healthcare Knowledge Translation” is an advancement in how one can incorporate implementation into the KT process. Kitson notes that “the challenge is to explain how it might help in the healthcare policy, practice, and research communities.” We propose that these concepts are well presented when considering highly-partnered research that includes all sectors. In this manuscript we provide an example of highly-partnered KT effort framed within the KT Complexity Network Theory. This effort is described by identifying the activities and sectors involved

Applying KT Network Complexity to a Highly-Partnered Knowledge Transfer Effort Comment on “Using Complexity and Network Concepts to Inform Healthcare Knowledge Translation”

Abstract The re-conceptualization of knowledge translation (KT) in Kitson and colleagues’ manuscript “Using Complexity and Network Concepts to Inform Healthcare Knowledge Translation” is an advancement in how one can incorporate implementation into the KT process. Kitson notes that “the challenge is to explain how it might help in the healthcare policy, practice, and research communities.” We propose that these concepts are well presented when considering highly-partnered research that includes all sectors. In this manuscript we provide an example of highly-partnered KT effort framed within the KT Complexity Network Theory. This effort is described by identifying the activities and sectors involved

Building a sharable literature collection to advance the science and practice of implementation facilitation

BackgroundImplementation science seeks to produce generalizable knowledge on strategies that promote the adoption and sustained use of evidence-based innovations. Literature reviews on specific implementation strategies can help us understand how they are conceptualized and applied, synthesize findings, and identify knowledge gaps. Although rigorous literature reviews can advance scientific knowledge and facilitate theory development, they are time-consuming and costly to produce. Improving the efficiency of literature review processes and reducing redundancy of effort is especially important for this rapidly developing field. We sought to amass relevant literature on one increasingly used evidence-based strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), as a publicly available resource.MethodsWe conducted a rigorous systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science citation databases for peer-reviewed, English-language articles with “facilitation” and a combination of other terms published from January 1996 to December 2021. We searched bibliographies of articles published from 1996 to 2015 and identified articles during the full text review that reported on the same study. Two authors screened 3,168 abstracts. After establishing inter-rater reliability, they individually conducted full-text review of 786 relevant articles. A multidisciplinary team of investigators provided recommendations for preparing and disseminating the literature collection.FindingsThe literature collection is comprised of 510 articles. It includes 277 empirical studies of IF and 77 other articles, including conceptual/theoretical articles, literature reviews, debate papers and descriptions of large-scale clinical initiatives. Over half of the articles were published between 2017 and 2021. The collection is publicly available as an Excel file and as an xml file that can be imported into reference management software.ConclusionWe created a publicly accessible collection of literature about the application of IF to implement evidence-based innovations in healthcare. The comprehensiveness of this collection has the potential to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy in scientific inquiry about this strategy. Scientists and practitioners can use the collection to more rapidly identify developments in the application of IF and to investigate a wide range of compelling questions on its use within and across different healthcare disciplines/settings, countries, and payer systems. We offer several examples of how this collection has already been used

Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study

BackgroundPoor terminological consistency for core concepts in implementation science has been widely noted as an obstacle to effective meta-analyses. This inconsistency is also a barrier for those seeking guidance from the research literature when developing and planning implementation initiatives. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aims to address one area of terminological inconsistency: discrete implementation strategies involving one process or action used to support a practice change. The present report is on the second stage of the ERIC project that focuses on providing initial validation of the compilation of 73 implementation strategies that were identified in the first phase.FindingsPurposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation science and clinical practice (N = 35). These key stakeholders used concept mapping sorting and rating activities to place the 73 implementation strategies into similar groups and to rate each strategy’s relative importance and feasibility. Multidimensional scaling analysis provided a quantitative representation of the relationships among the strategies, all but one of which were found to be conceptually distinct from the others. Hierarchical cluster analysis supported organizing the 73 strategies into 9 categories. The ratings data reflect those strategies identified as the most important and feasible.ConclusionsThis study provides initial validation of the implementation strategies within the ERIC compilation as being conceptually distinct. The categorization and strategy ratings of importance and feasibility may facilitate the search for, and selection of, strategies that are best suited for implementation efforts in a particular setting.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

How does facilitation in healthcare work? Using mechanism mapping to illuminate the black box of a meta-implementation strategy

BACKGROUND: Healthcare facilitation, an implementation strategy designed to improve the uptake of effective clinical innovations in routine practice, has produced promising yet mixed results in randomized implementation trials and has not been fully researched across different contexts. OBJECTIVE: Using mechanism mapping, which applies directed acyclic graphs that decompose an effect of interest into hypothesized causal steps and mechanisms, we propose a more concrete description of how healthcare facilitation works to inform its further study as a meta-implementation strategy. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi consensus process, co-authors developed the mechanistic map based on a three-step process. First, they developed an initial logic model by collectively reviewing the literature and identifying the most relevant studies of healthcare facilitation components and mechanisms to date. Second, they applied the logic model to write vignettes describing how facilitation worked (or did not) based on recent empirical trials that were selected via consensus for inclusion and diversity in contextual settings (US, international sites). Finally, the mechanistic map was created based on the collective findings from the vignettes. FINDINGS: Theory-based healthcare facilitation components informing the mechanistic map included staff engagement, role clarification, coalition-building through peer experiences and identifying champions, capacity-building through problem solving barriers, and organizational ownership of the implementation process. Across the vignettes, engagement of leaders and practitioners led to increased socialization of the facilitator\u27s role in the organization. This in turn led to clarifying of roles and responsibilities among practitioners and identifying peer experiences led to increased coherence and sense-making of the value of adopting effective innovations. Increased trust develops across leadership and practitioners through expanded capacity in adoption of the effective innovation by identifying opportunities that mitigated barriers to practice change. Finally, these mechanisms led to eventual normalization and ownership of the effective innovation and healthcare facilitation process. IMPACT: Mapping methodology provides a novel perspective of mechanisms of healthcare facilitation, notably how sensemaking, trust, and normalization contribute to quality improvement. This method may also enable more efficient and impactful hypothesis-testing and application of complex implementation strategies, with high relevance for lower-resourced settings, to inform effective innovation uptake

Expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC): Protocol for a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: Identifying feasible and effective implementation strategies that are contextually appropriate is a challenge for researchers and implementers, exacerbated by the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding terms and definitions for implementation strategies, as well as a literature that provides imperfect guidance regarding how one might select strategies for a given healthcare quality improvement effort. In this study, we will engage an Expert Panel comprising implementation scientists and mental health clinical managers to: establish consensus on a common nomenclature for implementation strategy terms, definitions and categories; and develop recommendations to enhance the match between implementation strategies selected to facilitate the use of evidence-based programs and the context of certain service settings, in this case the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health services. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will use purposive sampling to recruit an Expert Panel comprising implementation science experts and VA mental health clinical managers. A novel, four-stage sequential mixed methods design will be employed. During Stage 1, the Expert Panel will participate in a modified Delphi process in which a published taxonomy of implementation strategies will be used to establish consensus on terms and definitions for implementation strategies. In Stage 2, the panelists will complete a concept mapping task, which will yield conceptually distinct categories of implementation strategies as well as ratings of the feasibility and effectiveness of each strategy. Utilizing the common nomenclature developed in Stages 1 and 2, panelists will complete an innovative menu-based choice task in Stage 3 that involves matching implementation strategies to hypothetical implementation scenarios with varying contexts. This allows for quantitative characterizations of the relative necessity of each implementation strategy for a given scenario. In Stage 4, a live web-based facilitated expert recommendation process will be employed to establish expert recommendations about which implementations strategies are essential for each phase of implementation in each scenario. DISCUSSION: Using a novel method of selecting implementation strategies for use within specific contexts, this study contributes to our understanding of implementation science and practice by sharpening conceptual distinctions among a comprehensive collection of implementation strategies

How Does Facilitation in Healthcare Work? Using Mechanism Mapping to Illuminate the Black Box of a Meta-Implementation Strategy

BACKGROUND: Healthcare facilitation, an implementation strategy designed to improve the uptake of effective clinical innovations in routine practice, has produced promising yet mixed results in randomized implementation trials and has not been fully researched across different contexts. OBJECTIVE: Using mechanism mapping, which applies directed acyclic graphs that decompose an effect of interest into hypothesized causal steps and mechanisms, we propose a more concrete description of how healthcare facilitation works to inform its further study as a meta-implementation strategy. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi consensus process, co-authors developed the mechanistic map based on a three-step process. First, they developed an initial logic model by collectively reviewing the literature and identifying the most relevant studies of healthcare facilitation components and mechanisms to date. Second, they applied the logic model to write vignettes describing how facilitation worked (or did not) based on recent empirical trials that were selected via consensus for inclusion and diversity in contextual settings (US, international sites). Finally, the mechanistic map was created based on the collective findings from the vignettes. FINDINGS: Theory-based healthcare facilitation components informing the mechanistic map included staff engagement, role clarification, coalition-building through peer experiences and identifying champions, capacity-building through problem solving barriers, and organizational ownership of the implementation process. Across the vignettes, engagement of leaders and practitioners led to increased socialization of the facilitator\u27s role in the organization. This in turn led to clarifying of roles and responsibilities among practitioners and identifying peer experiences led to increased coherence and sense-making of the value of adopting effective innovations. Increased trust develops across leadership and practitioners through expanded capacity in adoption of the effective innovation by identifying opportunities that mitigated barriers to practice change. Finally, these mechanisms led to eventual normalization and ownership of the effective innovation and healthcare facilitation process. IMPACT: Mapping methodology provides a novel perspective of mechanisms of healthcare facilitation, notably how sensemaking, trust, and normalization contribute to quality improvement. This method may also enable more efficient and impactful hypothesis-testing and application of complex implementation strategies, with high relevance for lower-resourced settings, to inform effective innovation uptake

The association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment in a national sample

Abstract Background Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a common and highly morbid illness. New medications that have much higher cure rates have become the new evidence-based practice in the field. Understanding the implementation of these new medications nationally provides an opportunity to advance the understanding of the role of implementation strategies in clinical outcomes on a large scale. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study defined discrete implementation strategies and clustered these strategies into groups. The present evaluation assessed the use of these strategies and clusters in the context of HCV treatment across the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration, the largest provider of HCV care nationally. Methods A 73-item survey was developed and sent to all VA sites treating HCV via electronic survey, to assess whether or not a site used each ERIC-defined implementation strategy related to employing the new HCV medication in 2014. VA national data regarding the number of Veterans starting on the new HCV medications at each site were collected. The associations between treatment starts and number and type of implementation strategies were assessed. Results A total of 80 (62%) sites responded. Respondents endorsed an average of 25 ± 14 strategies. The number of treatment starts was positively correlated with the total number of strategies endorsed (r = 0.43, p < 0.001). Quartile of treatment starts was significantly associated with the number of strategies endorsed (p < 0.01), with the top quartile endorsing a median of 33 strategies, compared to 15 strategies in the lowest quartile. There were significant differences in the types of strategies endorsed by sites in the highest and lowest quartiles of treatment starts. Four of the 10 top strategies for sites in the top quartile had significant correlations with treatment starts compared to only 1 of the 10 top strategies in the bottom quartile sites. Overall, only 3 of the top 15 most frequently used strategies were associated with treatment. Conclusions These results suggest that sites that used a greater number of implementation strategies were able to deliver more evidence-based treatment in HCV. The current assessment also demonstrates the feasibility of electronic self-reporting to evaluate ERIC strategies on a large scale. These results provide initial evidence for the clinical relevance of the ERIC strategies in a real-world implementation setting on a large scale. This is an initial step in identifying which strategies are associated with the uptake of evidence-based practices in nationwide healthcare systems

Collaborative research between clinicians and researchers: a multiple case study of implementation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bottom-up, clinician-conceived and directed clinical intervention research, coupled with collaboration from researcher experts, is conceptually endorsed by the participatory research movement. This report presents the findings of an evaluation of a program in the Veterans Health Administration meant to encourage clinician-driven research by providing resources believed to be critical. The evaluation focused on the extent to which funded projects: maintained integrity to their original proposals; were methodologically rigorous; were characterized by collaboration between partners; and resulted in sustained clinical impact.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Researchers used quantitative (survey and archival) and qualitative (focus group) data to evaluate the implementation, evaluation, and sustainability of four clinical demonstration projects at four sites. Fourteen research center mentors and seventeen clinician researchers evaluated the level of collaboration using a six-dimensional model of participatory research.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Results yielded mixed findings. Qualitative and quantitative data suggested that although the process was collaborative, clinicians' prior research experience was critical to the quality of the projects. Several challenges were common across sites, including subject recruitment, administrative support and logistics, and subsequent dissemination. Only one intervention achieved lasting clinical effect beyond the active project period. Qualitative analyses identified barriers and facilitators and suggested areas to improve sustainability.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Evaluation results suggest that this participatory research venture was successful in achieving clinician-directed collaboration, but did not produce sustainable interventions due to such implementation problems as lack of resources and administrative support.</p