Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32375752›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Selecting and tailoring implementation interventions: a concept mapping approach.

Elaine Yuen Ling Kwok, Sheila T F Moodie, Barbara Jane Cunningham, Janis E Oram Cardy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Moving beyond barriers: a mixed-method study to develop evidence-based strategies to improve implementation of PROMs in clinical oncology care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elaine Yuen Ling KwokSchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Western Ontario, Elborn College, 1201 Western Road, London, Ontario, N6G 1H1, Canada. ekwok5@uwo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4893-2574
Sheila T F MoodieSchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Western University and The National Centre for Audiology, Western University, Elborn College, RM 2262K, 1201 Western Road, London, Ontario, N6G 1H1, Canada.
Barbara Jane CunninghamSchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Western Ontario, Elborn College, 1201 Western Road, London, Ontario, N6G 1H1, Canada.
Janis E Oram CardySchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Western Ontario, Elborn College, 1201 Western Road, London, Ontario, N6G 1H1, Canada.
Western University · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research-Doctoral Research Award 152272
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo improve the uptake of research into practice, knowledge translation frameworks recommend tailoring implementation strategies to address practice barriers. This study reports our experience pairing the Theoretical Domains Framework with information from multiple stakeholder groups to co-develop practice-informed strategies for improving the implementation of an evidence-based outcome measurement tool across a large community health system for preschoolers with communication impairments.

methodsConcept mapping was used to identify strategies for improving implementation of the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS) in Ontario Canada's Preschool Speech and Language Program. This work was done in five stages. First, we interviewed 37 speech-language pathologists (clinicians) who identified 90 unique strategies to resolve practice barriers to FOCUS implementation. Second, clinicians (n = 34), policy-makers (n = 3), and members of the FOCUS research team (n = 6) sorted and rated the strategies by importance and feasibility. Third, stakeholders' sorting data were analyzed to generate a two-dimensional concept map. Based on the rating data from stakeholders, we prioritized a list of strategies that were rated as highly important and highly feasible, and summarized the practice barriers addressed by each of the prioritized strategies. Fourth, we validated these findings with stakeholders via an online survey. Fifth, the mechanisms of action of the prioritized list of strategies were considered based on available evidence from the Theoretical Domains Framework and associated behavior change literature.

resultsStakeholders categorized the 90 unique implementation strategies into a six-cluster concept map. Based on stakeholders' ratings, a list of 14 implementation strategies were prioritized. These implementation strategies were reported to resolve barriers within the environmental context and resources and beliefs about consequences domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. All but one of the prioritized strategies have a demonstrated link in resolving existing barriers according to the behavioral change literature.

conclusionsOur study contributes to a growing literature that demonstrates the process of tailoring implementation strategies to specific barriers. Practical drawbacks and benefits of using concept mapping as a way to engage stakeholders in implementation research are discussed.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceChild, PreschoolEvidence-Based PracticeHumansLanguage DisordersOntarioSpeech DisordersSpeech-Language PathologyStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesConcept mappingImplementation interventionImplementation planningOutcome measurementPopulation outcomes; health outcomes; stakeholder engagementPractice-based researchSpeech-language pathologist

Identifiers

PMID32375752
PMCPMC7203846
OpenAlexW3021123924

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.