Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36217172›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2022

Applying implementation frameworks to the clinical trial context.

Kristian D Stensland, Anne E Sales, Laura J Damschroder, Ted A Skolarus

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kristian D StenslandDow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, NCRC Building 16, 100S-12, 2800 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. kstens@med.umich.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3765-3393
Anne E SalesDepartment of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Laura J DamschroderCenter for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Ted A SkolarusDow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, NCRC Building 16, 100S-12, 2800 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.

Funding

De-implementation of low value castration for men with prostate cancerR37CA222885 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SAINI, SAMEER DEV, SKOLARUS, TED ALBERT · 2018 to 2023
$3.6M
Advanced Training in Urologic OncologyT32CA180984 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Ganesh S Palapattu, VAHAKN B SHAHINIAN · 2014 to 2026
$3.4M
Refining castration use for recurrent prostate cancerR01CA242559 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SKOLARUS, TED ALBERT, TSODIKOV, ALEXANDER · 2020 to 2023
$1.4M
Building capacity for clinical trial improvement through implementation scienceF32CA264874 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI STENSLAND, KRISTIAN DONALD · 2021 to 2021
$84k
NCI NIH HHS F32 CA264874NCI NIH HHS R01 CA242559NCI NIH HHS R37 CA222885NCI NIH HHS T32 CA180984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials advance science, benefit society, and provide optimal care to individuals with some conditions, such as cancer. However, clinical trials often fail to reach their endpoints, and low participant enrollment remains a critical problem with trial conduct. In these ways, clinical trials can be considered beneficial evidence-based practices suffering from poor implementation. Prior approaches to improving trials have had difficulties with reproducibility and limited impact, perhaps due to the lack of an underlying trial improvement framework. For these reasons, we propose adapting implementation science frameworks to the clinical trial context to improve the implementation of clinical trials. MAIN TEXT: We adapted an outcomes framework (Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework) and a determinants framework (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) to the trial context. We linked these frameworks to ERIC-based improvement strategies and present an inferential process model for identifying and selecting trial improvement strategies based on the Implementation Research Logic Model. We describe example applications of the framework components to the trial context and present a worked example of our model applied to a trial with poor enrollment. We then consider the implications of this approach on improving existing trials, the design of future trials, and assessing trial improvement interventions. Additionally, we consider the use of implementation science in the clinical trial context, and how clinical trials can be "test cases" for implementation research.

conclusionsClinical trials can be considered beneficial evidence-based interventions suffering from poor implementation. Adapting implementation science approaches to the clinical trial context can provide frameworks for contextual assessment, outcome measurement, targeted interventions, and a shared vocabulary for clinical trial improvement. Additionally, exploring implementation frameworks in the trial context can advance the science of implementation through both "test cases" and providing fertile ground for implementation intervention design and testing.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsConsolidated framework for implementation researchDeterminantsImplementation mappingImplementation outcomesImplementation research logic model

Identifiers

PMID36217172
PMCPMC9552519

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.