Table 1
Tailored assumptions about the influence of contextual aspects on the implementation of the Integrated Violence Prevention Intervention. Expansion of Table 3 in Jaspers et al. (2019).
| REVIEWS/FRAMEWORKS IDENTIFYING THE CONTEXT ASPECTS | CONTEXT ASPECT | CONTEXT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTEGRATED VIOLENCE PREVENTION INTERVENTION |
|---|---|---|
| (Damschroder et al., 2009): Resources (Nielsen & Randall, 2013): Capacity/ resources to conduct the intervention | 1. Staff cuts | At work units where staff cuts occur before or under the intervention there will be a lower degree of implementation. |
| (Fleuren et al., 2004): High and middle high turnover impedes implementation (Damschroder et al., 2009): Stable teams and low turnover promotes implementation | 2. Staff turnover | At work units with high staff turnover there will be a lower degree of implementation. |
| (Damschroder et al., 2009): Management engagement promotes implementation (Nielsen & Randall, 2013): Change in management impedes implementation | 3. Change in management | At work units where there is a change in management just before or under the intervention the implementation will be negatively or positively affected. |
| (Nielsen & Randall, 2013): Conflicting initiatives, concurrent use of multiple change programs and economic recession impede implementation | 4. Potentially competing change processes | At work units where additional, potentially competing change processes occur before or during the intervention the degree of implementation will be negatively or positively affected. |
| (Damschroder et al., 2009): Self-efficacy promotes implementation (Fleuren et al., 2004): Self-efficacy, knowledge and competences of implementation promotes implementation (Nielsen & Randall, 2013): The organization’s past use and experience with similar interventions promote implementation | 5. Previous good experiences with similar interventions (in terms of process or content) | Work units that are familiar with conducting similar interventions will have higher levels of implementation. |
| (Damschroder et al., 2009): A good learning climate where managers invite for inputs and employees feel safe to try new methods promotes implementation (Fleuren et al., 2004): Hierarchical structure impede implementation (Nielsen & Randall, 2013): Bureaucratic culture and an international organization impede implementation | 6. Existing culture of participation | Work units with an existing culture with a high extent of employee participation will have higher levels of implementation. |
| (Damschroder et al., 2009): Individuals’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the intervention affects implementation (direction not indicated), implementation climate: strong need for change, good organization—intervention fit promotes implementation (Nielsen & Randall, 2013): Participants’ mental models including attitudes towards the intervention affects implementation (direction not indicated) | 7. Motivation for participation in the steering group | At work units where the motivation for participation in the steering group is high there will be a higher degree of implementation. |
| (Damschroder et al., 2009): Lack of resources impede implementation (Fleuren et al., 2004): Facilities needed to implement the intervention: economical resources, compensation, and other resources made available such as time and administrative support facilitates implementation (Nielsen & Randall, 2013): Capacity/ resources to conduct the intervention promotes or impedes implementation. | 8. Resources | At work units with low levels of resources caused by, e.g., a heavy inmate/patient group, intervention fatigue, competing change processes etc. there will be lower levels of implementation. |
| (Damschroder et al., 2009): Social networks in the organization, formal and informal communication affects implementation (direction not indicated) (Fleuren et al., 2004): Integration of the innovation in existing structures promotes implementation. | 9. Existing structure of the working environment organization | At work units where the working environment organization has a high degree of meeting activity and a systematical approach to improving the working environment the degree of implementation will be higher. |
Table 2
Contextual aspects present in the data material.
| CONTEXTUAL ASSUMPTION | NUMBER OF DATA SOURCES | NUMBERS OF QUOTES FROM DATA |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Staff cuts | 9 | 14 |
| 2. Staff turnover | 1 | 1 |
| 3. Change in management | 12 | 18 |
| 4. Parallel change process | 23 | 52 |
| 5. Previous good experiences with similar interventions (in terms of process or content) | 1 | 1 |
| 6. Existing culture of participation/proactivity | 24 | 61 |
| 7. Motivation for participation in the steering group | 23 | 36 |
| 8. Resources (time, economy, mental energy, staff meetings, “the right staff”) | 85 | 197 |
| 9. Existing structure of the working environment organization | 2 | 3 |
Table 3
Overview of contextual characteristics and mechanisms present in the four cases.
| PSYCHIATRIC WARDS | PRISONS (BOTH DETENTIONS) | |
|---|---|---|
| High imple-men-tation degree | Case 1: The ceiling effect case Implementation degree: 88% | Case 3: The ambitious case Implementation degree: 99% |
Contextual characteristics:
| Contextual characteristics:
| |
Mechanisms (Strength):
| Mechanisms (strength):
| |
| Low imple-men-tation degree | Case 2: The repelling case Implementation degree: 22% | Case 4: The demanding case Implementation degree: 46% |
Contextual characteristics:
| Contextual characteristics:
| |
Mechanisms (strength):
| Mechanisms (strength):
|
[i] *These numbers refer to the context factor presented in Table 1.