Logo image
Back
Implicit and explicit: a scoping review exploring the contribution of anthropological practice in implementation science
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Implicit and explicit: a scoping review exploring the contribution of anthropological practice in implementation science

Elissa Z Faro, Peter Taber, Aaron T Seaman, Ellen B Rubinstein, Gemmae M Fix, Heather Healy and Heather Schacht Reisinger
Implementation science : IS, Vol.19(1), 12
02/12/2024
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-024-01344-0
PMCID: PMC10863116
PMID: 38347574
url
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01344-0View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Related content

Is publication of

Abstract

This study's goal is to identify the existing variation in how, why, and by whom anthropological practice is conducted as part of implementation science projects. As doctorally trained anthropologists, we sought to characterize how and why the term "ethnography" was variously applied in the implementation science literature and characterize the practice of anthropology within and across the field. While we follow the PRISMA-ScR checklist, we present the work with a narrative approach to accurately reflect our review process. A health services librarian developed a search strategy using subject headings and keywords for the following databases: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley), CIHAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection, and Anthropology Plus (EBSCO). We focused on the practice of anthropology in implementation research conducted in a healthcare setting, in English, with no date restrictions. Studies were included if they applied one or several elements of anthropological methods in terms of study design, data collection, and/or analysis. The database searches produced 3450 results combined after duplicates were removed, which were added to Rayyan for two rounds of screening by title and abstract. A total of 487 articles were included in the full-text screening. Of these, 227 were included and received data extraction that we recorded and analyzed with descriptive statistics in three main domains: (1) anthropological methods; (2) implementation science methods; and (3) study context. We found the use of characteristic tools of anthropology like ethnography and field notes are usually not systematically described but often mentioned. Further, we found that research design decisions and compromises (e.g., length of time in the field, logistics of stakeholder involvement, reconciling diverse firsthand experiences) that often impact anthropological approaches are not systematically described. Anthropological work often supports larger, mixed-methods implementation projects without being thoroughly reported. Context is essential to anthropological practice and implicitly fundamental to implementation research, yet the goals of anthropology and how its practice informs larger research projects are often not explicitly stated.
 Anthropology Humans Implementation Science

Details

Metrics

112 Record Views
8 Times Cited - Web of Science
Logo image