Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35752754›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Making implementation science more real.

Mitchell N Sarkies, Emilie Francis-Auton, Janet C Long, Chiara Pomare, Rebecca Hardwick, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Mitchell N SarkiesCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, New South Wales, 2109, Australia. mitchell.sarkies@mq.edu.au.
Emilie Francis-AutonCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, New South Wales, 2109, Australia.
Janet C LongCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, New South Wales, 2109, Australia.
Chiara PomareCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, New South Wales, 2109, Australia.
Rebecca HardwickPeninsula Medical School, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Road, Sydney, New South Wales, 2109, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implementation science in healthcare aims to understand how to get evidence into practice. Once this is achieved in one setting, it becomes increasingly difficult to replicate elsewhere. The problem is often attributed to differences in context that influence how and whether implementation strategies work. We argue that realist research paradigms provide a useful framework to express the effect of contextual factors within implementation strategy causal processes. Realist studies are theory-driven evaluations that focus on understanding how and why interventions work under different circumstances. They consider the interaction between contextual circumstances, theoretical mechanisms of change and the outcomes they produce, to arrive at explanations of conditional causality (i.e., what tends to work, for whom, under what circumstances). This Commentary provides example applications using preliminary findings from a large realist implementation study of system-wide value-based healthcare initiatives in New South Wales, Australia. If applied judiciously, realist implementation studies may represent a sound approach to help optimise delivery of the right care in the right setting and at the right time.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareImplementation ScienceAustraliaHumansNew South WalesContextImplementation scienceMechanismOutcomeRealist evaluationRealist reviewRealist synthesisTheory

Identifiers

PMID35752754
PMCPMC9233332

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.