Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34819122›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2021

A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models.

Callie Walsh-Bailey, Edward Tsai, Rachel G Tabak, Alexandra B Morshed, Wynne E Norton, Virginia R McKay, Ross C Brownson, Sheyna Gifford

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Callie Walsh-BaileyPrevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA. callie.w@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1417-5130
Edward TsaiDepartment of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Rachel G TabakPrevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Alexandra B MorshedPrevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Wynne E NortonDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20850, USA.
Virginia R McKayPrevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Ross C BrownsonPrevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Sheyna GiffordDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Washington University in St. Louis, 4444 Forest Park Ave, Campus Box 8518, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA.

Funding

Washington University Center for Diabetes Translation Research P30DK092950 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Ross C Brownson, Debra Haire-Joshu · 2011 to 2026
$11.7M
Washington University Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control (WU-ISCCC)P50CA244431 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C, COLDITZ, GRAHAM A. · 2019 to 2023
$8.0M
Postdoctoral Training in Cancer Prevention and ControlT32CA190194 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI GRAHAM A. COLDITZ, AIMEE S JAMES · 2014 to 2026
$4.7M
Mentored Education for Dissemination and Implementation Science (MEDIS) ProgramR25DK123008 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C, HAIRE-JOSHU, DEBRA · 2020 to 2024
$1.1M
ACL HHS U48DP006395NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP006395NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244431NCI NIH HHS P50CA244431NCI NIH HHS T32 CA190194NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092950NIDDK NIH HHS P30DK092950NIDDK NIH HHS R25 DK123008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReduction or elimination of inappropriate, ineffective, or potentially harmful healthcare services and public health programs can help to ensure limited resources are used effectively. Frameworks and models (FM) are valuable tools in conceptualizing and guiding the study of de-implementation. This scoping review sought to identify and characterize FM that can be used to study de-implementation as a phenomenon and identify gaps in the literature to inform future model development and application for research.

methodsWe searched nine databases and eleven journals from a broad array of disciplines (e.g., healthcare, public health, public policy) for de-implementation studies published between 1990 and June 2020. Two raters independently screened titles and abstracts, and then a pair of raters screened all full text records. We extracted information related to setting, discipline, study design, methodology, and FM characteristics from included studies.

resultsThe final search yielded 1860 records, from which we screened 126 full text records. We extracted data from 27 articles containing 27 unique FM. Most FM (n = 21) were applicable to two or more levels of the Socio-Ecological Framework, and most commonly assessed constructs were at the organization level (n = 18). Most FM (n = 18) depicted a linear relationship between constructs, few depicted a more complex structure, such as a nested or cyclical relationship. Thirteen studies applied FM in empirical investigations of de-implementation, while 14 articles were commentary or review papers that included FM.

conclusionDe-implementation is a process studied in a broad array of disciplines, yet implementation science has thus far been limited in the integration of learnings from other fields. This review offers an overview of visual representations of FM that implementation researchers and practitioners can use to inform their work. Additional work is needed to test and refine existing FM and to determine the extent to which FM developed in one setting or for a particular topic can be applied to other contexts. Given the extensive availability of FM in implementation science, we suggest researchers build from existing FM rather than recreating novel FM. REGISTRATION: Not registered.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareImplementation ScienceHumansResearch DesignResearch ReportDe-adoptionDe-implementationDisinvestmentFrameworkHealthLow-valueModelObsolescenceScoping review

Identifiers

PMID34819122
PMCPMC8611904

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.