Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29868542›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2018

A Pragmatic Approach to Guide Implementation Evaluation Research: Strategy Mapping for Complex Interventions.

Alexis K Huynh, Alison B Hamilton, Melissa M Farmer, Bevanne Bean-Mayberry, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Tannaz Moin, Erin P Finley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

7 authors.

Alexis K HuynhVA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Alison B HamiltonVA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Melissa M FarmerVA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Bevanne Bean-MayberryVA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Shannon Wiltsey StirmanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Tannaz MoinVA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Erin P FinleySouth Texas Veterans Healthcare System, San Antonio, TX, United States.

Funding

HSRD VA IP1 HX001987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGreater specification of implementation strategies is a challenge for implementation science, but there is little guidance for delineating the use of multiple strategies involved in complex interventions. The Cardiovascular (CV) Toolkit project entails implementation of a toolkit designed to reduce CV risk by increasing women's engagement in appropriate services. The CV Toolkit project follows an enhanced version of Replicating Effective Programs (REP), an evidence-based implementation strategy, to implement the CV Toolkit across four phases: pre-conditions, pre-implementation, implementation, and maintenance and evolution. Our current objective is to describe a method for mapping implementation strategies used in real time as part of the CV Toolkit project. This method supports description of the timing and content of bundled strategies and provides a structured process for developing a plan for implementation evaluation.

methodsWe conducted a process of strategy mapping to apply Proctor and colleagues' rubric for specification of implementation strategies, constructing a matrix in which we identified each implementation strategy, its conceptual group, and the corresponding REP phase(s) in which it occurs. For each strategy, we also specified the actors involved, actions undertaken, action targets, dose of the implementation strategy, and anticipated outcome addressed. We iteratively refined the matrix with the implementation team, including use of simulation to provide initial validation.

resultsMapping revealed patterns in the timing of implementation strategies within REP phases. Most implementation strategies involving the development of stakeholder interrelationships and training and educating stakeholders were introduced during the pre-conditions or pre-implementation phases. Strategies introduced in the maintenance and evolution phase emphasized communication, re-examination, and audit and feedback. In addition to its value for producing valid and reliable process evaluation data, mapping implementation strategies has informed development of a pragmatic blueprint for implementation and longitudinal analyses and evaluation activities. DISCUSSION: We update recent recommendations on specification of implementation strategies by considering the implications for multi-strategy frameworks and propose an approach for mapping the use of implementation strategies within complex, multi-level interventions, in support of rigorous evaluation. Developing pragmatic tools to aid in operationalizing the conduct of implementation and evaluation activities is essential to enacting sound implementation research.

Indexed as

complex interventionsevaluationimplementation blueprintimplementation strategiesstrategy mapping

Identifiers

PMID29868542
PMCPMC5968102

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.