Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29941011›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2018

Criteria for evaluating transferability of health interventions: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Tamara Schloemer, Peter Schröder-Bäck

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 77 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Guideline for Contextual Adaptation of Community-Based Health Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Capitalisation as a boundary object in intervention research, serving knowledge production and mobilisation.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 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

2 authors.

Tamara SchloemerDepartment of International Health, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI-Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Postbus 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. tamara.schloemer@outlook.de.ORCID 0000-0002-0219-4107
Peter Schröder-BäckDepartment of International Health, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, CAPHRI-Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Postbus 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (BE) Grant agreement number: 634201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving the public's health in different countries requires the consideration of diverse health care systems and settings. For evidence-based public health, decision-makers need to consider the transferability of effective health interventions from a primary context to their specific target context. The aim of this systematic review was to develop a model for the assessment of transferability of health interventions through identification and systematization of influencing criteria, including facilitators and barriers.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Articles were eligible if they were published in English or German and provided a description of transferability criteria. Included articles were ranked based on their thematic relevance and methodological support of transferability criteria. Using a qualitative approach, a thematic synthesis was conducted.

resultsThirty-seven articles were included in the review. The thematic synthesis revealed 44 criteria, covered by 4 overarching themes, which influence transferability of health interventions: The population (P), the intervention (I), and the environment (E) represent 30 conditional transferability criteria, and the transfer of the intervention (T) represents 14 process criteria for transferring the intervention to the target context. Transferability (-T) depends on the dynamic interaction of conditional criteria in the primary and target context as well as on the process of transfer. The description of facilitators and barriers deepens the understanding of the criteria. The synthesis resulted in two related models: the conceptual PIET-T model explains the underlying mechanism of transferability of health interventions and the PIET-T process model provides practical guidance for a transferability assessment.

conclusionsTransferability of health interventions is a complex concept, which needs systematic consideration of the primary and target context. It should be anticipated before and evaluated after an intervention is implemented in the target context. Therefore, decision-makers need systematic and practically relevant knowledge on transferability. The synthesized PIET-T conceptual and process models with systematized criteria, facilitators, and barriers are intended as a theoretical basis to determine transferability of health interventions. Further research is needed to develop a practical tool for the PIET-T models and to evaluate the tool's usefulness for decision-making processes and intervention transfer.

Indexed as

Public HealthTechnology TransferDelivery of Health CareHumansAssessmentDecision-makingEvaluationEvidence-basedHealth careImplementationInterventionPublic healthTransferability

Identifiers

PMID29941011
PMCPMC6019740

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.