ArticleImplementation science communications2022
Development of the ASSESS tool: a comprehenSive tool to Support rEporting and critical appraiSal of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods implementation reSearch outcomes.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and healthcare systems-level interventions for postpartum hemorrhage prevention and management in Nigeria: a systematic review of effectiveness and implementation outcomes.Frontiers in health services · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of real-world evidence on the clinical relevance, characterization, and utility ofJournal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2025Pooled it
- Mobile health interventions for African adults with hypertension: Evidence from a systematic review of implementation research outcomes.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- The role of preparation in implementation for rural healthcare innovation: a multi method evaluation of a virtual medical officer model of inpatient care in Australia.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Strengthening simulation design and cultural safe practice: end-user evaluation of the quality simulation assurance framework.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Burnout Risk Among Providers of an Integrated Care Program Supporting Transitions Between the Hospital and Home: A Descriptive Mixed Methods Evaluation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Handling Editor: Monica AndersenA global perspective of parent engagement with digital sleep health interventions for young children: A scoping review.Sleep medicine reviews · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Environmental Health Influences on Food Security in Very Remote Indigenous Communities in Australia: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Perceived usefulness of new technologies in palliative care volunteering: mixed-methods study with stakeholders.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Implementing Equitable Hypertension Care Using a Remote Patient Monitoring Program: A Mixed Methods Study.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- The role of water supply reliability in influencing the uptake of safe toilet pans in Kenya.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
- Pilot implementation of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine to prevent adverse birth outcomes in Papua, Indonesia: a mixed-method evaluation.The Lancet. Primary care · 2025Article
- Implementation Outcomes for Agitation Detection Technologies in People with Dementia: A Systematic Review.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Nurses' Perceptions on the Role of Advanced Psychiatric Nurses in Mental Healthcare: An Integrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Evaluating implementation research outcomes for a task-sharing mental health intervention: A systematic review of the Friendship Bench.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2025Review
- Protocol for developing a Consolidated Checklist for Reporting Mixed Methods Research (CORMIX) using modified Delphi.PloS one · 2025Article
- Integrated programs for common mental illnesses within primary care and community settings in Latin America: a scoping review of components and implementation strategies.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2025Article
- Outcomes of an integrated knowledge translation approach in five African countries: a mixed-methods comparative case study.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Investigating pre-registration podiatry students approaches to identifying dermatology conditions in different skin tones: A mixed methods protocol.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2024Article
- The use of virtual nominal groups in healthcare research: An extended scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral tools to improve reporting of implementation studies for evidence-based decision making have been created; however, no tool for critical appraisal of implementation outcomes exists. Researchers, practitioners, and policy makers lack tools to support the concurrent synthesis and critical assessment of outcomes for implementation research. Our objectives were to develop a comprehensive tool to (1) describe studies focused on implementation that use qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methodologies and (2) assess risk of bias of implementation outcomes.
methodsA hybrid consensus-building approach combining Delphi Group and Nominal Group techniques (NGT) was modeled after comparative methodologies for developing health research reporting guidelines and critical appraisal tools. First, an online modified NGT occurred among a small expert panel (n = 5), consisting of literature review, item generation, round robin with clarification, application of the tool to various study types, voting, and discussion. This was followed by a larger e-consensus meeting and modified Delphi process with implementers and implementation scientists (n = 32). New elements and elements of various existing tools, frameworks, and taxonomies were combined to produce the ASSESS tool.
resultsThe 24-item tool is applicable to a broad range of study designs employed in implementation science, including qualitative studies, randomized-control trials, non-randomized quantitative studies, and mixed methods studies. Two key features are a section for assessing bias of the implementation outcomes and sections for describing the implementation strategy and intervention implemented. An accompanying explanation and elaboration document that identifies and describes each of the items, explains the rationale, and provides examples of reporting and appraising practice, as well as templates to allow synthesis of extracted data across studies and an instructional video, has been prepared.
conclusionsThe comprehensive, adaptable tool to support both reporting and critical appraisal of implementation science studies including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods assessment of intervention and implementation outcomes has been developed. This tool can be applied to a methodologically diverse and growing body of implementation science literature to support reviews or meta-analyses that inform evidence-based decision-making regarding processes and strategies for implementation.
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.