IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v213y2018icp28-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adaptations of the evidence-based Transitional Care Model in the U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Naylor, Mary D.
  • Hirschman, Karen B.
  • Toles, Mark P.
  • Jarrín, Olga F.
  • Shaid, Elizabeth
  • Pauly, Mark V.

Abstract

Despite a growing body of evidence that adaptations of evidence-based interventions (EBI) are ubiquitous, few studies have examined the nature and rationale for modifications to the components of these interventions. The primary aim of this study was to describe and classify common local adaptations of the Transitional Care Model (TCM), an EBI comprised of 10 components that has been proven in multiple clinical trials to improve the care and outcomes of chronically ill older adults transitioning from hospitals to home. Guided by Stirman's System of Classifying Adaptations, 582 transitional care clinicians in health systems and community-based organizations throughout the U.S. completed a survey between September 2014 and January 2015; interviews were then conducted with a subset of survey respondents (N = 24) between April and December 2015. A total of 342 survey respondents (59%) reported implementation of the TCM in distinct organizations. Of this group, 96% reported a mean of 4.4 adaptations to the 10 TCM components (40%, one to three; 43%, four to six; and 17%, seven to nine). Nine of ten respondents (94%) reported contextual adaptations while content adaptations were less frequently reported (58%). The top three reported adaptations all related to context (i.e., delivering services from hospital to home, relying on advance practice nurses, and fostering care continuity); interviews clarified a diverse set of reasons for such modifications. Findings reinforce the need for investment in adaptation science and suggest hypotheses to guide rigorous examination of the association between adaptations of TCM components and desired outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Naylor, Mary D. & Hirschman, Karen B. & Toles, Mark P. & Jarrín, Olga F. & Shaid, Elizabeth & Pauly, Mark V., 2018. "Adaptations of the evidence-based Transitional Care Model in the U.S," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 28-36.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:213:y:2018:i:c:p:28-36
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618303800
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen R. Barley & Gideon Kunda, 2001. "Bringing Work Back In," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 76-95, February.
    2. Laura C. Leviton & Mathew D. Trujillo, 2017. "Interaction of Theory and Practice to Assess External Validity," Evaluation Review, , vol. 41(5), pages 436-471, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paschoalotto, Marco Antonio Catussi & Lazzari, Eduardo Alves & Rocha, Rudi & Massuda, Adriano & Castro, Marcia C., 2023. "Health systems resilience: is it time to revisit resilience after COVID-19?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barrett, Michael & Cooper, David J. & Jamal, Karim, 2005. "Globalization and the coordinating of work in multinational audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Namrata Malhotra & Timothy Morris, 2009. "Heterogeneity in Professional Service Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(6), pages 895-922, September.
    3. Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 3-21, February.
    4. Merkel, Janet & Suwala, Lech, 2021. "Intermediaries, work and creativity in creative and innovative sectors. The case of Berlin," EconStor Open Access Book Chapters, in: Culture, Creativity and Economy. Collaborative practices, value creation and spaces of creativity., pages 56-69, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    5. Ricardo Azambuja & Gazi Islam, 2019. "Working at the boundaries: Middle managerial work as a source of emancipation and alienation," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) halshs-01959107, HAL.
    6. Richard A. Hunt & Mathew L. A. Hayward, 2018. "Value Creation Through Employer Loans: Evidence of Informal Lending to Employees at Small, Labor-Intensive Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 284-303, April.
    7. Kingshuk K. Sinha & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 2005. "Designing Work Within and Between Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 389-408, August.
    8. Michael J. Zyphur & Dean C. Pierides, 2020. "Making Quantitative Research Work: From Positivist Dogma to Actual Social Scientific Inquiry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 49-62, November.
    9. Burström, Thommie & Wilson, Timothy L. & Wincent, Joakim, 2020. "Dynamics of after-sales managers’ strategizing work: What, why and how," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 119-131.
    10. Benoît Journé, 2005. "Étudier le management de l’imprévu:méthode dynamique d’observation in situ," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 8(4), pages 63-91, December.
    11. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    12. Adam Seth Litwin & Sherry M. Tanious, 2021. "Information Technology, Business Strategy and the Reassignment of Work from In‐House Employees to Agency Temps," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 59(3), pages 816-847, September.
    13. Daniel Geiger & Jochen Koch, 2008. "Von der individuellen Routine zur organisationalen Praktik — Ein neues Paradigma für die Organisationsforschung?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 60(7), pages 693-712, November.
    14. Maurits C. de Klepper & Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca & Ed Sleebos & Filip Agneessens, 2017. "Sociometric Status and Peer Control Attempts: A Multiple Status Hierarchies Approach," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 1-31, January.
    15. Beth A. Bechky, 2011. "Making Organizational Theory Work: Institutions, Occupations, and Negotiated Orders," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1157-1167, October.
    16. Michiel Bal & Jos Benders & Lander Vermeerbergen, 2022. "‘Bringing the Covert into the Open’: A Case Study on Technology Appropriation and Continuous Improvement," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-17, May.
    17. Schmoll, René & Süß, Stefan, 2019. "Working Anywhere, Anytime: An Experimental Investigation of Workplace Flexibility's Influence on Organizational Attraction," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 30(1), pages 40-62.
    18. Leslie A. Perlow & Jody Hoffer Gittell & Nancy Katz, 2004. "Contextualizing Patterns of Work Group Interaction: Toward a Nested Theory of Structuration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 520-536, October.
    19. Davies, Andrew & Frederiksen, Lars & Cacciatori, Eugenia & Hartmann, Andreas, 2018. "The long and winding road: Routine creation and replication in multi-site organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1403-1417.
    20. Nelson, Andrew & Earle, Andrew & Howard-Grenville, Jennifer & Haack, Julie & Young, Doug, 2014. "Do innovation measures actually measure innovation? Obliteration, symbolic adoption, and other finicky challenges in tracking innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 927-940.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:213:y:2018:i:c:p:28-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.