ArticleImplementation science : IS2018
Standardizing an approach to the evaluation of implementation science proposals.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and preliminary evaluation of the Implementation Research Proposal Appraisal Criteria (ImpResPAC) tool: an international expert modified e-Delphi study.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- A tool to evaluate the integration of implementation science methods in a research project: The Dissemination and Implementation Research Capability Self Survey (DIRC-SS).Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- An introduction to implementation science in rehabilitation medicine.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Navigating grey areas in HIV and mental health implementation science.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2024Article
- Optimizing the roles of health workers to improve access to health services in Africa: an implementation framework for task shifting and sharing for policy and practice.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Integrating non-communicable disease prevention and control into maternal and child health programmes.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Enhancing review criteria for dissemination and implementation science grants.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Evaluating the translation of implementation science to clinical artificial intelligence: a bibliometric study of qualitative research.Frontiers in health services · 2023Review
- Article
- Where is "policy" in dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example.Implementation science : IS · 2022Review
- Leveraging Implementation Science for Cardiovascular Health Equity: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2022Review
- Roles dissemination and implementation scientists can play in supporting research teams.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- The Building Blocks of Implementation Frameworks and Models in Primary Care: A Narrative Review.Frontiers in public health · 2021Review
- Landscape of HIV Implementation Research Funded by the National Institutes of Health: A Mapping Review of Project Abstracts.AIDS and behavior · 2020Review
- Implementation Science, Behavior Analysis, and Supporting Evidence-based Practices for Individuals with Autism.European journal of behavior analysis · 2020Article
- Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice.Implementation science communications · 2020Article
- Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide.Implementation science : IS · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe fields of implementation and improvement sciences have experienced rapid growth in recent years. However, research that seeks to inform health care change may have difficulty translating core components of implementation and improvement sciences within the traditional paradigms used to evaluate efficacy and effectiveness research. A review of implementation and improvement sciences grant proposals within an academic medical center using a traditional National Institutes of Health framework highlighted the need for tools that could assist investigators and reviewers in describing and evaluating proposed implementation and improvement sciences research.
methodsWe operationalized existing recommendations for writing implementation science proposals as the ImplemeNtation and Improvement Science Proposals Evaluation CriTeria (INSPECT) scoring system. The resulting system was applied to pilot grants submitted to a call for implementation and improvement science proposals at an academic medical center. We evaluated the reliability of the INSPECT system using Krippendorff's alpha coefficients and explored the utility of the INSPECT system to characterize common deficiencies in implementation research proposals.
resultsWe scored 30 research proposals using the INSPECT system. Proposals received a median cumulative score of 7 out of a possible score of 30. Across individual elements of INSPECT, proposals scored highest for criteria rating evidence of a care or quality gap. Proposals generally performed poorly on all other criteria. Most proposals received scores of 0 for criteria identifying an evidence-based practice or treatment (50%), conceptual model and theoretical justification (70%), setting's readiness to adopt new services/treatment/programs (54%), implementation strategy/process (67%), and measurement and analysis (70%). Inter-coder reliability testing showed excellent reliability (Krippendorff's alpha coefficient 0.88) for the application of the scoring system overall and demonstrated reliability scores ranging from 0.77 to 0.99 for individual elements.
conclusionsThe INSPECT scoring system presents a new scoring criteria with a high degree of inter-rater reliability and utility for evaluating the quality of implementation and improvement sciences grant proposals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.