Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33272313›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2020

Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map.

Bryan R Garner, Sheila V Patel, M Alexis Kirk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Bryan R GarnerRTI International, P. O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA. bgarner@rti.org.ORCID 0000-0002-7856-9403
Sheila V PatelRTI International, P. O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA.
M Alexis KirkCenterstone Research Institute, 44 Vantage Way, Suite 400, Nashville, TN, 37228, USA.

Funding

Identifying and Disseminating Substance, Treatment, and Strategy (STS) Recommendations to AIDS Service OrganizationsR01DA044051 · NIDA · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI GARNER, BRYAN R · 2018 to 2022
$3.8M
Substance Abuse Treatment to HIV Care (SAT2HIV)R01DA038146 · NIDA · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI GARNER, BRYAN R · 2014 to 2018
$3.4M
The Substance Abuse Treatment to HIV care (SAT2HIV-II) ProjectR01DA052294 · NIDA · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI GARNER, BRYAN R · 2020 to 2024
$3.0M
Reinforcing Therapist PerformanceR01AA017625 · NIAAA · CHESTNUT HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. · PI GARNER, BRYAN R · 2008 to 2010
$1.3M
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (US) R01-AA017625NIDA NIH HHS R01-DA038146NIDA NIH HHS R01-DA044051NIDA NIH HHS R01-DA052294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue that the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR's development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram.

methodsThe objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Our sample will include IR published in leading implementation-focused journals (i.e., Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications, and Implementation Research and Practice) between their inception and December 2020. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey and O'Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date. DISCUSSION: This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR's development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/3vhuj/.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicUnited StatesImplementation researchImplementation sciencePriority setting

Identifiers

PMID33272313
PMCPMC7716483

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.