SynthesisImplementation science : IS2018
German language questionnaires for assessing implementation constructs and outcomes of psychosocial and health-related interventions: a systematic review.
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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Usability Assessment Methods for Mobile Apps for Physical Rehabilitation: Umbrella Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- Assessing the Role of Collective Efficacy Beliefs During Participative Occupational Health Interventions.Frontiers in public health · 2021Trial
- Mapping the development of implementation science competency frameworks and capacity-building programmes: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Validity of Perceived Stress Scale in Brazilian low-income college students.Revista de saude publica · 2025Article
- Use and application of geographical restrictions in systematic reviews with the aim of including studies about Germany: An update of a methodological review.Health information and libraries journal · 2024Review
- Article
- Validation of the German Normalisation Process Theory Measure G-NoMAD: translation, adaptation, and pilot testing.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Article
- Climate for evidence-based mental health care implementation in Germany: psychometric investigation of the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS).Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Unraveling implementation context: the Basel Approach for coNtextual ANAlysis (BANANA) in implementation science and its application in the SMILe project.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Cross-cultural adaption and psychometric investigation of the German version of the Evidence Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS-36D).Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past years, implementation science has gained more and more importance in German-speaking countries. Reliable and valid questionnaires are needed for evaluating the implementation of evidence-based practices. On an international level, several initiatives focused on the identification of questionnaires used in English-speaking countries but limited their search processes to mental health and public health settings. Our aim was to identify questionnaires used in German-speaking countries measuring the implementation of interventions in public health and health care settings in general and to assess their psychometric properties.
methodsWe searched five different bibliographic databases (from 1985 to August 2017) and used several other search strategies (e.g., reference lists, forward citation) to obtain our data. We assessed the instruments, which were identified in an independent dual review process, using 12 psychometric rating criteria. Finally, we mapped the instruments' scales and subscales in regard to the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Implementation Outcome Framework (IOF).
resultsWe identified 31 unique instruments available for the assessment of implementation science constructs. Hospitals and other health care settings were the ones most often investigated (23 instruments), while education and childcare settings, workplace settings, and community settings lacked published instruments. Internal consistency, face and content validity, usability, and structural validity were the aspects most often described. However, most studies did not report on test-retest reliability, known-groups validity, predictive criterion validity, or responsiveness. Overall, the majority of studies did not reveal high-quality instruments, especially regarding the psychometric criteria internal consistency, structural validity, and criterion validity. In addition, we seldom detected instruments operationalizing the CFIR domains intervention characteristics, outer setting, and process, and the IOF constructs adoption, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability.
conclusionsOverall, a sustained and continuous effort is needed to improve the reliability and validity of existing instruments to new ones. Instruments applicable to the assessment of implementation constructs in public health and community settings are urgently needed.
trial registrationThe systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO on October 19, 2017, under the following number: CRD42017075208 .
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.