Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30466450›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool.

Sarah A Birken, Catherine L Rohweder, Byron J Powell, Christopher M Shea, Jennifer Scott, Jennifer Leeman, Mary E Grewe, M Alexis Kirk, Laura Damschroder, William A Aldridge and 3 more

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 83 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Implementation research in Primary Care (Part 2): How to conduct implementation research?Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 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

13 authors.

Sarah A BirkenDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1103E McGavran-Greenberg, 135 Dauer Drive, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7411, USA. birken@unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0591-4800
Catherine L RohwederUNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA.
Byron J PowellDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1103E McGavran-Greenberg, 135 Dauer Drive, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7411, USA.
Christopher M SheaDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1103E McGavran-Greenberg, 135 Dauer Drive, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7411, USA.
Jennifer ScottNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Jennifer LeemanSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Mary E GreweNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
M Alexis KirkDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1103E McGavran-Greenberg, 135 Dauer Drive, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7411, USA.
Laura DamschroderAnn Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Implementation Research Coordinator, Personalizing Options through Veteran Engagement (PROVE) QUERI Program, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Floor 3, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA.
William A AldridgeFPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB #8180, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-8180, USA.
Emily R HainesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1103E McGavran-Greenberg, 135 Dauer Drive, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7411, USA.
Sharon StrausDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Justin PresseauClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.

Funding

Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Deborah F. Tate · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
Re-Entry Supplement: Investigation of Oral Microbial Enzymes for the Detection and Treatment of Periodontal DiseaseUL1TR002489 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, SHAHEEN, NICHOLAS J · 2018 to 2022
$48.6M
UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CLINICAL NUTRITION RESEARCH UNITP30DK056350 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI SUSAN M. SMITH · 1999 to 2026
$31.6M
North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS) KL2KL2TR002490 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WEINBERGER, MORRIS · 2018 to 2022
$11.0M
Center for Health Promotion and Disease PreventionU48DP005017 · DP · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI AMMERMAN, ALICE S, WHEELER, STEPHANIE BROOKE · 2014 to 2018
$10.9M
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
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (US) KL2TR002490National Institute of Mental Health (US) R01MH106510NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002490NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002489NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR0024898NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005017NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086NCI NIH HHS P30-CA16086NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056350NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH113806NIMH NIH HHS K01MH113806NIMH NIH HHS L30 MH108060NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH106510NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH080916NIMH NIH HHS R25MH080916
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTheories, models, and frameworks (TMF) are foundational for generalizing implementation efforts and research findings. However, TMF and the criteria used to select them are not often described in published articles, perhaps due in part to the challenge of selecting from among the many TMF that exist in the field. The objective of this international study was to develop a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide their implementation projects.

methodsImplementation scientists across the USA, the UK, and Canada identified and rated conceptually distinct categories of criteria in a concept mapping exercise. We then used the concept mapping results to develop a tool to help users select appropriate TMF for their projects. We assessed the tool's usefulness through expert consensus and cognitive and semi-structured interviews with implementation scientists.

resultsThirty-seven implementation scientists (19 researchers and 18 practitioners) identified four criteria domains: usability, testability, applicability, and familiarity. We then developed a prototype of the tool that included a list of 25 criteria organized by domain, definitions of the criteria, and a case example illustrating an application of the tool. Results of cognitive and semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for the tool to (1) be as succinct as possible; (2) have separate versions to meet the unique needs of researchers versus practitioners; (3) include easily understood terms; (4) include an introduction that clearly describes the tool's purpose and benefits; (5) provide space for noting project information, comparing and scoring TMF, and accommodating contributions from multiple team members; and (6) include more case examples illustrating its application. Interview participants agreed that the tool (1) offered them a way to select from among candidate TMF, (2) helped them be explicit about the criteria that they used to select a TMF, and (3) enabled them to compare, select from among, and/or consider the usefulness of combining multiple TMF. These revisions resulted in the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST), a paper and web-enabled tool that includes 16 specific criteria that can be used to consider and justify the selection of TMF for a given project. Criteria are organized within four categories: applicability, usability, testability, and acceptability.

conclusionsT-CaST is a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide implementation projects. Additionally, T-CaST has the potential to promote transparent reporting of criteria used to select TMF within and beyond the field of implementation science.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceModels, TheoreticalHealth Services ResearchHumansInterviews as TopicReproducibility of ResultsCognitive interviewingConcept mappingCriteria for selectionFrameworkImplementation theoryTheoryTool development

Identifiers

PMID30466450
PMCPMC6251099

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.