Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35964095›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2022

Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem.

Rinad S Beidas, Shannon Dorsey, Cara C Lewis, Aaron R Lyon, Byron J Powell, Jonathan Purtle, Lisa Saldana, Rachel C Shelton, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Meghan B Lane-Fall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 137 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
137citing 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

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

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

77 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

10 authors.

Rinad S Beidas, Philadelphia, USA. rinad.beidas@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6056-6071
Shannon Dorsey, Seattle, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6240-0294
Cara C Lewis, Seattle, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8920-8075
Aaron R Lyon, Seattle, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3657-5060
Byron J Powell, St. Louis, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5245-1186
Jonathan Purtle, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6908-5944
Lisa Saldana, Eugene, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0792-6290
Rachel C Shelton, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6496-6339
Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Menlo Park, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9917-5078
Meghan B Lane-Fall, Philadelphia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7050-0017

Funding

Transforming mental health delivery through behavioral economics and implementation scienceP50MH113840 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MANDELL, DAVID S · 2017 to 2020
$6.6M
Research ProgramP50CA244690 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BEIDAS, RINAD SARY, BEKELMAN, JUSTIN · 2020 to 2024
$4.9M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244690
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation science is at a sufficiently advanced stage that it is appropriate for the field to reflect on progress thus far in achieving its vision, with a goal of charting a path forward. In this debate, we offer such reflections and report on potential threats that might stymie progress, as well as opportunities to enhance the success and impact of the field, from the perspective of a group of US-based researchers. MAIN BODY: Ten mid-career extramurally funded US-based researchers completed a "pre-mortem" or a group brainstorming exercise that leverages prospective hindsight to imagine that an event has already occurred and to generate an explanation for it - to reduce the likelihood of a poor outcome. We came to consensus on six key themes related to threats and opportunities for the field: (1) insufficient impact, (2) too much emphasis on being a "legitimate science," (3) re-creation of the evidence-to-practice gap, (4) difficulty balancing accessibility and field coherence, (5) inability to align timelines and priorities with partners, and (6) overly complex implementation strategies and approaches.

conclusionWe submit this debate piece to generate further discussion with other implementation partners as our field continues to develop and evolve. We hope the key opportunities identified will enhance the future of implementation research in the USA and spark discussion across international groups. We will continue to learn with humility about how best to implement with the goal of achieving equitable population health impact at scale.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceProfessional Practice GapsHumansProspective StudiesImplementation scienceOpportunitiesPre-mortem exerciseThreats

Identifiers

PMID35964095
PMCPMC9375077

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.