Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25112492›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2014

Identifying determinants of care for tailoring implementation in chronic diseases: an evaluation of different methods.

Jane Krause, Jan Van Lieshout, Rien Klomp, Elke Huntink, Eivind Aakhus, Signe Flottorp, Cornelia Jaeger, Jost Steinhaeuser, Maciek Godycki-Cwirko, Anna Kowalczyk and 3 more

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 100 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

100 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Facilitators and barriers to implementing the Diabetes Prevention Program in rural church settings: A qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article

40 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

13 authors.

Jane Krause
Jan Van Lieshout
Rien Klomp
Elke Huntink
Eivind Aakhus
Signe Flottorp
Cornelia Jaeger
Jost Steinhaeuser
Maciek Godycki-Cwirko
Anna Kowalczyk
Shona Agarwal
Michel Wensing
Richard Baker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe tailoring of implementation interventions includes the identification of the determinants of, or barriers to, healthcare practice. Different methods for identifying determinants have been used in implementation projects, but which methods are most appropriate to use is unknown.

methodsThe study was undertaken in five European countries, recommendations for a different chronic condition being addressed in each country: Germany (polypharmacy in multimorbid patients); the Netherlands (cardiovascular risk management); Norway (depression in the elderly); Poland (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease--COPD); and the United Kingdom (UK) (obesity). Using samples of professionals and patients in each country, three methods were compared directly: brainstorming amongst health professionals, interviews of health professionals, and interviews of patients. The additional value of discussion structured through reference to a checklist of determinants in addition to brainstorming, and determinants identified by open questions in a questionnaire survey, were investigated separately. The questionnaire, which included closed questions derived from a checklist of determinants, was administered to samples of health professionals in each country. Determinants were classified according to whether it was likely that they would inform the design of an implementation intervention (defined as plausibly important determinants).

resultsA total of 601 determinants judged to be plausibly important were identified. An additional 609 determinants were judged to be unlikely to inform an implementation intervention, and were classified as not plausibly important. Brainstorming identified 194 of the plausibly important determinants, health professional interviews 152, patient interviews 63, and open questions 48. Structured group discussion identified 144 plausibly important determinants in addition to those already identified by brainstorming.

conclusionsSystematic methods can lead to the identification of large numbers of determinants. Tailoring will usually include a process to decide, from all the determinants that are identified, those to be addressed by implementation interventions. There is no best buy of methods to identify determinants, and a combination should be used, depending on the topic and setting. Brainstorming is a simple, low cost method that could be relevant to many tailored implementation projects.

Indexed as

AgedCardiovascular DiseasesChronic DiseaseDelivery of Health CareDepressionGermanyHumansNetherlandsNorwayPolandPolypharmacyPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Program DevelopmentPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID25112492
PMCPMC4243773

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.