ReviewGlobal health, science and practice2021
Bugs in the Bed: Addressing the Contradictions of Embedded Science with Agile Implementation Research.
Review in Global health, science and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Creating demand for unmet needs: Agile Storytelling.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
- The scope and sustainability of, and data about, utilization of embedded research: qualitative evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Embedding implementation research to cross the quality of care chasm during the covid-19 pandemic and beyond.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Improving Primary Care Quality Through Supportive Supervision and Mentoring: Lessons From the African Health Initiative in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
- Use of implementation science to advance family planning programs in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.Frontiers in global women's health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implementation research often fails to have its intended impact on what programs actually do. Embedding research within target organizational systems represents an effective response to this problem. However, contradictions associated with the approach often prevent its application. We present case studies of the application of embedded implementation research in Bangladesh, Ghana, and Tanzania where initiatives to strengthen community-based health systems were conducted using the embedded science model. In 2 of the cases, implementation research standards that are typically embraced without question were abandoned to ensure pursuit of embedded science. In the third example, statistical rigor was sustained, but this feature of the design was inconsistent with embedded science. In general, rigorous statistical designs employ units of observation that are inconsistent with organizational units that managers can control. Structural contradictions impede host institution ownership of research processes and utilization of results. Moreover, principles of scientific protocol leadership are inconsistent with managerial leadership. These and other embedded implementation science attributes are reviewed together with contradictions that challenged their pursuit in each case. Based on strategies that were effectively applied to offsetting challenges, a process of merging research with management is proposed that is derived from computer science. Known as "agile science," this paradigm combines scientific rigor with management decision making. This agile embedded research approach is designed to sustain scientific rigor while optimizing the integration of learning into managerial decision making.
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.