Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28974248›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2017

Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping.

Byron J Powell, Cameo F Stanick, Heather M Halko, Caitlin N Dorsey, Bryan J Weiner, Melanie A Barwick, Laura J Damschroder, Michel Wensing, Luke Wolfenden, Cara C Lewis

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of the Autism Mentorship Program.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 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

10 authors.

Byron J PowellDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1105C McGavran-Greenberg Hall, 135 Dauer Drive, Campus Box 7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. bjpowell@unc.edu.
Cameo F StanickHathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Heather M HalkoDepartment of Psychology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.
Caitlin N DorseyKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Bryan J WeinerDepartment of Global Health and Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Melanie A BarwickHospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Laura J DamschroderVA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research and Diabetes QUERI, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michel WensingDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld, Heidelberg, Germany.
Luke WolfendenSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Cara C LewisKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

Virology, Immunology, and Microbiology CoreP30AI050410 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVID M. MARGOLIS · 2001 to 2026
$76.9M
North Carolina Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)UL1TR001111 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, CAREY, TIMOTHY S · 2013 to 2017
$43.9M
Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IRI-MHSR25MH080916 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Byron James Powell · 2009 to 2026
$3.7M
Advancing Implementation Science through Measure Development and EvaluationR01MH106510 · NIMH · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI LEWIS, CARA CHARISSA · 2015 to 2017
$1.3M
IMPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND SUSTAINMENT OF EBPS IN MENTAL HEALTH: DEVELOPING AND PILOTING THE COLLABORATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH TO SELECTING AND TAILORING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES (COAST-ISK01MH113806 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI POWELL, BYRON JAMES · 2017 to 2020
$697k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001111NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI050410NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH113806NIMH NIH HHS L30 MH108060NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH106510NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH080916
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpose of this study was to establish a stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the domains that comprise the pragmatic measure construct. It built upon a systematic review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews that generated 47 criteria for pragmatic measures, and aimed to further refine that set of criteria by identifying conceptually distinct categories of the pragmatic measure construct and providing quantitative ratings of the criteria's clarity and importance.

methodsTwenty-four stakeholders with expertise in implementation practice completed a concept mapping activity wherein they organized the initial list of 47 criteria into conceptually distinct categories and rated their clarity and importance. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.

findingsThe 47 criteria were meaningfully grouped into four distinct categories: (1) acceptable, (2) compatible, (3) easy, and (4) useful. Average ratings of clarity and importance at the category and individual criteria level will be presented.

conclusionsThis study advances the field of implementation science and practice by providing clear and conceptually distinct domains of the pragmatic measure construct. Next steps will include a Delphi process to develop consensus on the most important criteria and the development of quantifiable pragmatic rating criteria that can be used to assess measures.

Indexed as

Stakeholder ParticipationCluster AnalysisHealth Plan ImplementationHealth Services ResearchHumansInterviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID28974248
PMCPMC5627503

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.