Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24669765›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2014

Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study.

Thomas J Waltz, Byron J Powell, Matthew J Chinman, Jeffrey L Smith, Monica M Matthieu, Enola K Proctor, Laura J Damschroder, JoAnn E Kirchner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

122 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Thomas J WaltzDepartment of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2200 Fort Roots Drive (152/NLR), Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, HSR&D and Mental Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Little Rock, Arkansas, USA. twaltz1@emich.edu.
Byron J Powell
Matthew J Chinman
Jeffrey L Smith
Monica M Matthieu
Enola K Proctor
Laura J Damschroder
JoAnn E Kirchner

Funding

Washington University Center for Diabetes Translation Research P30DK092950 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Ross C Brownson, Debra Haire-Joshu · 2011 to 2026
$11.7M
GWB MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE RESEARCH TRAININGT32MH019960 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Leopoldo J Cabassa, Byron James Powell · 1995 to 2026
$11.1M
A Multiple Case Study of Implementation as Usual in Children's Mental HealthF31MH098478 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI POWELL, BYRON JAMES · 2012 to 2013
$54k
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092950NIMH NIH HHS F31 MH098478NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH019960
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying 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/

designThis 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.

Indexed as

Organizational InnovationClinical ProtocolsDelphi TechniqueDiffusion of InnovationHumansMental Health ServicesResearch DesignTranslational Research, BiomedicalUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs

Identifiers

PMID24669765
PMCPMC3987065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.