Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35869516›Full record

ReviewImplementation science communications2022

The effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations in health care: a systematic review.

Wilmer J Santos, Ian D Graham, Michelle Lalonde, Melissa Demery Varin, Janet E Squires

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 117 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

117 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Bereavement care practices: A national survey of Australian paediatric intensive care units.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

57 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

5 authors.

Wilmer J SantosSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ian D GrahamClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Michelle LalondeSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Melissa Demery VarinSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Janet E SquiresSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. janet.squires@uottawa.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChampions have been documented in the literature as an important strategy for implementation, yet their effectiveness has not been well synthesized in the health care literature. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether champions, tested in isolation from other implementation strategies, are effective at improving innovation use or outcomes in health care.

methodsThe JBI systematic review method guided this study. A peer-reviewed search strategy was applied to eight electronic databases to identify relevant articles. We included all published articles and unpublished theses and dissertations that used a quantitative study design to evaluate the effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations within health care settings. Two researchers independently completed study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal. We used content analysis and vote counting to synthesize our data.

resultsAfter screening 7566 records titles and abstracts and 2090 full text articles, we included 35 studies in our review. Most of the studies (71.4%) operationalized the champion strategy by the presence or absence of a champion. In a subset of seven studies, five studies found associations between exposure to champions and increased use of best practices, programs, or technological innovations at an organizational level. In other subsets, the evidence pertaining to use of champions and innovation use by patients or providers, or at improving outcomes was either mixed or scarce.

conclusionsWe identified a small body of literature reporting an association between use of champions and increased instrumental use of innovations by organizations. However, more research is needed to determine causal relationship between champions and innovation use and outcomes. Even though there are no reported adverse effects in using champions, opportunity costs may be associated with their use. Until more evidence becomes available about the effectiveness of champions at increasing innovation use and outcomes, the decision to deploy champions should consider the needs and resources of the organization and include an evaluation plan. To further our understanding of champions' effectiveness, future studies should (1) use experimental study designs in conjunction with process evaluations, (2) describe champions and their activities and (3) rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of champions' activities. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ba3d2 ). Registered on November 15, 2020.

Indexed as

ChampionsEffectivenessHealth careImplementationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35869516
PMCPMC9308185

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.