Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34969685›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2021

A guide to systems-level, participatory, theory-informed implementation research in global health.

Nadine Seward, Charlotte Hanlon, Saba Hinrichs-Kraples, Crick Lund, Jamie Murdoch, Tatiana Taylor Salisbury, Ruth Verhey, Rahul Shidhaye, Graham Thornicroft, Ricardo Araya and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Co-Producing and Evaluating a Culturally Inclusive Dementia Education Initiative: A Multimethod Study Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Nadine SewardCentre for Implementation Science, Department of Health Service and Population Research, King's College London, London, UK nadine.seward@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4821-9437
Charlotte Hanlon *Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Health Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Global Mental Health, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7937-3226
Saba Hinrichs-Kraples *Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9043-8847
Crick Lund *King's College London, London, UK.
Jamie Murdoch *University of East Anglia Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9021-3629
Tatiana Taylor Salisbury *King's College London, London, UK.
Ruth VerheyResearch Support Centre, College of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Rahul ShidhayePravara Institute of Medical Sciences, Loni, Maharashtra, India.ORCID 0000-0001-9365-7164
Graham ThornicroftKing's College London, London, UK.
Ricardo ArayaKing's College London, London, UK.
Nick SevdalisHealth Service & Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T019662/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implementation research is a multidisciplinary field that addresses the complex phenomenon of how context influences our ability to deliver evidence-informed healthcare. There is increasing realisation of the importance of applying robust implementation research to scale-up life-saving interventions that meet health-related sustainable development goals. However, the lack of high-quality implementation research is impeding our ability to meet these targets, globally. Within implementation research, theory refers to the proposed hypothesis and/or explanation of how an intervention is expected to interact with the local context and actors to bring about change. Although there is increasing interest in applying theory to understand how and why implementation programmes work in real-world settings, global health actors still tend to favour impact evaluations conducted in controlled environments. This may, in part, be due to the relative novelty as well as methodological complexity of implementation research and the need to draw on divergent disciplines, including epidemiology, implementation science and social sciences. Because of this, implementation research is faced with a particular set of challenges about how to reconcile different ways of thinking and constructing knowledge about healthcare interventions. To help translate some of the ambiguity surrounding how divergent theoretical approaches and methods contribute to implementation research, we draw on our multidisciplinary expertise in the field, particularly in global health. We offer an overview of the different theoretical approaches and describe how they are applied to continuously select, monitor and evaluate implementation strategies throughout the different phases of implementation research. In doing so, we offer a relatively brief, user-focused guide to help global health actors implement and report on evaluation of evidence-based and scalable interventions, programmes and practices.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareGlobal HealthHumanshealth policies and all other topicshealth systemshealth systems evaluationpublic health

Identifiers

PMID34969685
PMCPMC8718460

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.