Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32539710›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Development of an integrative coding framework for evaluating context within implementation science.

L Rogers, A De Brún, E McAuliffe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  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

3 authors.

L RogersUniversity College Dublin Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), UCD School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin 4, Ireland. lisa.rogers@ucdconnect.ie.ORCID 0000-0001-8286-2082
A De BrúnUniversity College Dublin Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), UCD School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin 4, Ireland.
E McAuliffeUniversity College Dublin Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), UCD School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Funding

Irish Health Research Board RL-2015-1588
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis research aims to explore an identified gap in implementation science methodology, that is, how to assess context in implementation research. Context is among the strongest influences on implementation success but is a construct that is poorly understood and reported within the literature. Consequently, there is little guidance on how to research context. This study addresses this issue by developing a method to account for the active role of context during implementation research. Through use of a case study, this paper demonstrates the value of using our context coding framework.

methodsThe developed context coding framework was guided by the sub-elements of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Employing a constructivist approach, this framework builds on the CFIR and enables a deeper exploration of context at multiple levels of the health system. The coding framework enables the collation of various data sources such as organisational reports, culture audits, interview, survey, and observational data. It may be continuously updated as new data emerge and can be adapted by researchers as required. A pre-existing rating criterion has been integrated to the context coding framework to highlight the influence and relative strength of each contextual factor prior to and during implementation.

resultsIt is anticipated that the context coding framework will facilitate a standardised approach to assessing context. This will provide a deeper understanding of how to account for the influence of context, ultimately providing guidance that should increase the likelihood of implementation success. The coding framework enables implementation progress to be monitored, facilitating the identification of contextual changes and variations across settings at different levels of the healthcare system. It is expected this framework will inform the selection of appropriate implementation strategies and enable the monitoring of such strategies regarding their impact on local context.

conclusionsThis research contributes to the extant literature by advancing methodologies for the consideration and assessment of context in implementation research. This context coding framework may be used in any setting to provide insight into the characteristics of particular contexts throughout implementation processes.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareImplementation ScienceHumansContextContextual factorsEvaluationHealthcareImplementation science

Identifiers

PMID32539710
PMCPMC7296653

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.