Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34145020›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Ten years of implementation outcome research: a scoping review protocol.

Rebecca Lengnick-Hall, Enola K Proctor, Alicia C Bunger, Donald R Gerke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Methodological considerations for evaluating scale-up programmes in healthcare: a methods review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Rebecca Lengnick-HallThe Brown School, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA rlengnick-hall@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7900-0585
Enola K ProctorThe Brown School, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Alicia C BungerCollege of Social Work, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Donald R GerkeGraduate School of Social Work, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
GWB MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE RESEARCH TRAININGT32MH019960 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Leopoldo J Cabassa, Byron James Powell · 1995 to 2026
$11.1M
National Survey of State Policy Decision-making and SimulationP50MH113662 · NIMH · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI HOAGWOOD, KIMBERLY E., MCKAY, MARY MCKERNAN · 2019 to 2022
$6.9M
IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IRI-MHSR25MH080916 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Byron James Powell · 2009 to 2026
$3.7M
Collaborating to Implement Cross-System Interventions in Child Welfare and Substance UseR34DA046913 · NIDA · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BUNGER, ALICIA C · 2019 to 2021
$716k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NIDA NIH HHS R34 DA046913NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH113662NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH080916NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH019960
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA 2011 paper proposed a working taxonomy of implementation outcomes, their conceptual distinctions and a two-pronged research agenda on their role in implementation success. Since then, over 1100 papers citing the manuscript have been published. Our goal is to compare the field's progress to the originally proposed research agenda, and outline recommendations for the next 10 years. To accomplish this, we are conducting the proposed scoping review. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our approach is informed by Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews. We will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We first aim to assess the degree to which each implementation outcome has been investigated in the literature, including healthcare settings, clinical populations and innovations represented. We next aim to describe the relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes. Our last aim is to identify studies that empirically assess relationships among implementation and/or service and client outcomes. We will use a forward citation tracing approach to identify all literature that cited the 2011 paper in the Web of Science (WOS) and will supplement this with citation alerts sent to the second author for a 6-month period coinciding with the WOS citation search. Our review will focus on empirical studies that are designed to assess at least one of the identified implementation outcomes in the 2011 taxonomy and are published in peer-reviewed journals. We will generate descriptive statistics from extracted data and organise results by these research aims. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No human research participants will be involved in this review. We plan to share findings through a variety of means including peer-reviewed journal publications, national conference presentations, invited workshops and webinars, email listservs affiliated with our institutions and professional associations, and academic social media.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePeer ReviewHumansPopulation GroupsResearch DesignScoping Reviews as Topichealth services administration & managementorganisation of health servicesquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID34145020
PMCPMC8215242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.