Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29843740›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

Standardizing an approach to the evaluation of implementation science proposals.

Erika L Crable, Dea Biancarelli, Allan J Walkey, Caitlin G Allen, Enola K Proctor, Mari-Lynn Drainoni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. An introduction to implementation science in rehabilitation medicine.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  4. Navigating grey areas in HIV and mental health implementation science.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

6 authors.

Erika L CrableEvans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, Boston University School of Medicine, 88 East Newton Street, Vose 216, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. ecrable@bu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2605-5339
Dea BiancarelliEvans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, Boston University School of Medicine, 88 East Newton Street, Vose 216, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Allan J WalkeyEvans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, Boston University School of Medicine, 88 East Newton Street, Vose 216, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Caitlin G AllenBehavioral Sciences and Health Education Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Enola K ProctorCenter for Mental Health Services Research, The Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Mari-Lynn DrainoniEvans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, Boston University School of Medicine, 88 East Newton Street, Vose 216, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Implementation ScienceQuality ImprovementResearch DesignFinancing, OrganizedHumansNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Pilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsUnited StatesGrant scoringGrant writingImplementation researchImprovement research

Identifiers

PMID29843740
PMCPMC5975262

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.