ArticlePloS one2021
Implementation strategies in emergency management of children: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven forecasting and shift optimization for pediatric emergency department crowding.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Review article: A primer for clinical researchers in the emergency department: Part XII. Sustainability of improvements in care: An introduction.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementation strategies are vital for the uptake of evidence to improve health, healthcare delivery, and decision-making. Medical or mental emergencies may be life-threatening, especially in children, due to their unique physiological needs when presenting in the emergency departments (EDs). Thus, practice change in EDs attending to children requires evidence-informed considerations regarding the best approaches to implementing research evidence. We aimed to identify and map the characteristics of implementation strategies used in the emergency management of children.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework. We searched four databases [Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Wiley) and CINAHL (Ebsco)] from inception to May 2019, for implementation studies in children (≤21 years) in emergency settings. Two pairs of reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. We performed a descriptive analysis of the included studies.
resultsWe included 87 studies from a total of 9,607 retrieved citations. Most of the studies were before and after study design (n = 68, 61%) conducted in North America (n = 63, 70%); less than one-tenth of the included studies (n = 7, 8%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). About one-third of the included studies used a single strategy to improve the uptake of research evidence. Dissemination strategies were more commonly utilized (n = 77, 89%) compared to other implementation strategies; process (n = 47, 54%), integration (n = 49, 56%), and capacity building and scale-up strategies (n = 13, 15%). Studies that adopted capacity building and scale-up as part of the strategies were most effective (100%) compared to dissemination (90%), process (88%) and integration (85%).
conclusionsStudies on implementation strategies in emergency management of children have mostly been non-randomized studies. This review suggests that 'dissemination' is the most common strategy used, and 'capacity building and scale-up' are the most effective strategies. Higher-quality evidence from randomized-controlled trials is needed to accurately assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies in emergency management of children.
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.