Applying an intersectionality lens to the theoretical domains framework: a tool for thinking about how intersecting social identities and structures of power influence behaviour
Tóm tắt
A key component of the implementation process is identifying potential barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is one of the most commonly used frameworks for this purpose. When applying the TDF, it is critical to understand the context in which behaviours occur. Intersectionality, which accounts for the interface between social identity factors (e.g. age, gender) and structures of power (e.g. ageism, sexism), offers a novel approach to understanding how context shapes individual decision-making and behaviour. We aimed to develop a tool to be used alongside applications of the TDF to incorporate an intersectionality lens when identifying implementation barriers and enablers. An interdisciplinary Framework Committee (n = 17) prioritized the TDF as one of three models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) to enhance with an intersectional lens through a modified Delphi approach. In collaboration with the wider Framework Committee, a subgroup considered all 14 TDF domains and iteratively developed recommendations for incorporating intersectionality considerations within the TDF and its domains. An iterative approach aimed at building consensus was used to finalize recommendations. Consensus on how to apply an intersectionality lens to the TDF was achieved after 12 rounds of revision. Two overarching considerations for using the intersectionality alongside the TDF were developed by the group as well as two to four prompts for each TDF domain to guide interview topic guides. Considerations and prompts were designed to assist users to reflect on how individual identities and structures of power may play a role in barriers and facilitators to behaviour change and subsequent intervention implementation. Through an expert-consensus approach, we developed a tool for applying an intersectionality lens alongside the TDF. Considering the role of intersecting social factors when identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing research evidence may result in more targeted and effective interventions that better reflect the realities of those involved.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge translation. 2016.
Tannenbaum C, Greaves L, ID G. Why sex and gender matter in implementation research. BMC Med Reseaerch Methodol. 2016;16:145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0251-9.
Brehaut JC, Eva KW. Building theories of knowledge translation interventions: use the entire menu of constructs. Implement Sci. 2012;7:114.
Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N, Baker R, et al. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:107–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.002.
Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O’Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, et al. A guide to using the theoretical domains framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12:107–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2004.09.002.
Squires JE, Graham I, Bashir K, Nadalin-Penno L, Lavis J, Francis J, et al. Understanding context: A concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(12):3448-70.
Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:1–21.
O’Neill J, Tabish H, Welch V, Petticrew M, Pottie K, Clarke M, et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.005.
Wilson A. Situating Intersectionality: politics, policy, and power; 2013.
Jordan-zachery JS. The Palgrave handbook of Intersectionality in public policy; 2019.
Mena E, Bolte G. Intersectionality-based quantitative health research and sex/gender sensitivity: a scoping review. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18:1–11.
Hankivsky O, Cormier R. Intersectionality and public policy: some lessons from existing models. Polit Res Q. 2011;64:217–29.
Crenshaw K. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Rev. 1993;43:1241–99.
McCall L. The complexity of intersectionality. J Women Cult Soc. 2005;30:1771–800.
Collins PH. Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge; 2000.
Hankivsky O. An Intersectionality-based policy analysis framework. 2012. www.sfu.ca/iirp/ibpa.html.
Status of Women Canada. Gender-based analysis Plus. 2018. https://cfc-swc.gc.ca/gba-acs/index-en.html. Accessed 13 May 2020.
Cochrane Collaboration. PROGRESS-Plus. Cochrane Methods Equity 2017. http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/projects/evidence-equity/progress-plus. Accessed 13 Dec 2017.
Arcaya MC, Arcaya AL, Subramanian SV. Inequalities in health: definitions, concepts, and theories. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015;38:261–71.
Bauer GR. Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Soc Sci Med. 2014;110:10–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.022.
Bowleg L. The problem with the phrase Women and Minorities: Intersectionality—an important theoretical framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:1267–73. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300750.
Springer KW, Mager Stellman J, Jordan-Young RM. Beyond a catalogue of differences: a theoretical frame and good practice guidelines for researching sex/gender in human health. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74:1817–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.033.
Green MA, Evans CR, Subramanian SV. Can intersectionality theory enrich population health research? Soc Sci Med. 2017;178:214–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.029.
Hankivsky O, Doyal L, Einstein G, Kelly U, Shim J, Weber L, et al. The odd couple: using biomedical and intersectional approaches to address health inequities. Glob Health Action. 2017;10:1326686. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1326686.
Hankivsky O. Rethinking care ethics: on the promise and potential of an intersectional analysis. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2014;108:252–64.
Hankivsky O. Women’s health, men’s health, and gender and health: implications of intersectionality. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74:1712–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.029.
Rice C, Harrison E, Friedman M. Doing justice to Intersectionality in research. Cult Stud Crit Methodol. 2019;19(6):1–31.
Marshall M, De Silva D, Cruickshank L, Shand J, Wei L, Anderson J. What we know about designing an effective improvement intervention (but too often fail to put into practice). BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:578–82.
Sharma S, Boet S, Kitto S, Reeves S. Interprofessional simulated learning: the need for ‘sociological fidelity’. J Interprof Care. 2011;25:81–3. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2011.556514.
Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:37.
Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A, et al. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:26–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.
Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2006;26:13–24.
Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Wood TJ, Gonsalves C, Ufholz LA, Mascioli K, et al. The use of the Delphi and other consensus group methods in medical education research: a review. Acad Med. 2017;92:1491–8.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:1–15.
Titler MG, Kleiber C, Steelman VJ, Rakel BA, Budreau G, Everett LQ, et al. The Iowa model of evidence-based practice to promote quality care. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2001;13:497–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0899-5885(18)30017-0.
Knowledge Translation Program. Intersectionality & KT. 2019. https://knowledgetranslation.net/portfolios/intersectionality-and-kt/. Accessed 24 Apr 2020.
Thiyagarajah K, Moore J. Intersectionality and knowledge translation. 2018. https://osf.io/mf7hz. Accessed 1 Nov 2019.
Birken SA, Rohweder CL, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Scott J, Leeman J, et al. T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implement Sci. 2018;13:1–10.
Etherington C. Race, Gender, and the Resources That Matter: An Investigation of Intersectionality and Health. Women Health. 2015;55(7):754–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2015.1050544..
MOVE Canada. MOVES. The MOVE Program. 2020. https://www.movescanada.ca/. Accessed 24 Apr 2020.
Intersectionality and Knowledge Translation Interventions Team. Intersectionality & Knowledge Translation (KT): Selecting and Tailoring KT Interventions Workbook. 2020. https://knowledgetranslation.net/portfolios/intersectionality-and-kt/. Accessed 24 Apr 2020.
Flottorp SA, Oxman AD, Krause J, Musila NR, Wensing M, Godycki-Cwirko M, et al. A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci. 2013;8:8–35.
Richardson M, Khouja CL, Sutcliffe K, Thomas J. Using the theoretical domains framework and the behavioural change wheel in an overarching synthesis of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2019;9:1–16.
Kitto SC, Sargeant J, Reeves S, Silver I. Towards a sociology of knowledge translation: the importance of being dis-interested in knowledge translation. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2012;17:289–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9303-6.
Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–13.