ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Implementation mapping for tobacco cessation in a federally qualified health center.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proactive planning for contextual fit: the role of the implementation premortem.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- The use of implementation mapping in healthcare settings: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Development of an implementation plan for a school-based multimodal approach for depression and suicide prevention in adolescents.Frontiers in public health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Implementation mapping (IM) is a promising five-step method for guiding planning, execution, and maintenance of an innovation. Case examples are valuable for implementation practitioners to understand considerations for applying IM. This pilot study aimed to determine the feasibility of using IM within a federally qualified health center (FQHC) with limited funds and a 1-year timeline. Methods: An urban FQHC partnered with an academic team to employ IM for implementing a computerized strategy of tobacco cessation: the 5A's (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange). Each step of IM was supplemented with theory-driven methods and frameworks. Data collection included surveys and interviews with clinic staff, analyzed Results: Medical assistants and clinicians were identified as primary implementers of the 5A's intervention. Salient determinants of change included the perceived compatibility and relative priority of 5A's. Performance objectives and change objectives were derived to address these determinants, along with a suite of implementation strategies. Despite indicators of adoptability and acceptability of the 5A's, reductions in willingness to adopt the implementation package occurred over time and the intervention was not adopted by the FQHC within the study timeframe. This is likely due to the strain of the COVID-19 pandemic altering health clinic priorities. Conclusions: Administratively, the five IM steps are feasible to conduct with FQHC staff within 1 year. However, this study did not obtain its intended outcomes. Lessons learned include the importance of re-assessing barriers over time and ensuring a longer timeframe to observe implementation outcomes.
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.