Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35434356›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2022

Balancing reality in embedded research and evaluation: Low vs high embeddedness.

George L Jackson, Laura J Damschroder, Brandolyn S White, Blake Henderson, Ryan J Vega, Amy M Kilbourne, Sarah L Cutrona

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning health systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

7 authors.

George L JacksonCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT) Durham VA Health Care System Durham North Carolina USA.
Laura J DamschroderCenter for Clinical Management Research VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System Ann Arbor Michigan USA.
Brandolyn S WhiteCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT) Durham VA Health Care System Durham North Carolina USA.
Blake HendersonOffice of Healthcare Innovation and Learning United States Veterans Health Administration Washington District of Columbia USA.
Ryan J VegaOffice of Healthcare Innovation and Learning United States Veterans Health Administration Washington District of Columbia USA.
Amy M KilbourneQuality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) United States Veterans Health Administration Washington District of Columbia USA.
Sarah L CutronaCenter for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research Bedford & Boston VA Medical Centers Bedford Massachusetts USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Embedding research and evaluation into organizations is one way to generate "practice-based" evidence needed to accelerate implementation of evidence-based innovations within learning health systems. Organizations and researchers/evaluators vary greatly in how they structure and operationalize these collaborations. One key aspect is the degree of embeddedness: from low embeddedness where researchers/evaluators are located outside organizations (eg, outside evaluation consultants) to high embeddedness where researchers/evaluators are employed by organizations and thus more deeply involved in program evolution and operations. Pros and cons related to the degree of embeddedness (low vs high) must be balanced when developing these relationships. We reflect on this process within the context of an embedded, mixed-methods evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program. Considerations that must be balanced include: (a) low vs high alignment of goals; (b) low vs high involvement in strategic planning; (c) observing what is happening vs being integrally involved with programmatic activities; (d) reporting findings at the project's end vs providing iterative findings and recommendations that contribute to program evolution; and (e) adhering to predetermined aims vs adapting aims in response to evolving partner needs.

Indexed as

diffusionembedded researchimplementation scienceQuality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI)veterans

Identifiers

PMID35434356
PMCPMC9006533

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.