Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36503520›Full record

ReviewImplementation science : IS2022

Where is "policy" in dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example.

Erika L Crable, Rebecca Lengnick-Hall, Nicole A Stadnick, Joanna C Moullin, Gregory A Aarons

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 63 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

3 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.

Erika L CrableDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA. ecrable@health.ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2605-5339
Rebecca Lengnick-HallThe Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Nicole A StadnickDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.
Joanna C MoullinFaculty of Health Sciences, enAble Institute, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Gregory A AaronsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.

Funding

Enhancing team effectiveness for a collaborative school-based intervention for ADHDP50MH126231 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI GREGORY AARONS, LAUREN BROOKMAN-FRAZEE · 2022 to 2026
$13.9M
National Survey of State Policy Decision-making and SimulationP50MH113662 · NIMH · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI HOAGWOOD, KIMBERLY E. · 2019 to 2022
$6.9M
IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IRI-MHSR25MH080916 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Byron James Powell · 2009 to 2026
$3.7M
Statewide System and Organizational Strategy for Evidence-Based Practice Implementation and Sustainment in Substance Use Disorder TreatmentR01DA049891 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI AARONS, GREGORY · 2020 to 2024
$3.6M
Policy Dissemination Strategies to Improve the Use of Research Evidence in Medicaid Benefits for Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentK01DA056838 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Erika Lynn Crable · 2022 to 2026
$914k
NIDA NIH HHS 1K01DA056838NIDA NIH HHS K01 DA056838NIDA NIH HHS L60 DA056946NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA049891NIDA NIH HHS R01DA049891NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH113662NIMH NIH HHS P50MH113662.NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH126231NIMH NIH HHS P50MH126231NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH080916
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation science aims to accelerate the public health impact of evidence-based interventions. However, implementation science has had too little focus on the role of health policy - and its inseparable politics, polity structures, and policymakers - in the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based healthcare. Policies can serve as determinants, implementation strategies, the evidence-based "thing" to be implemented, or another variable in the causal pathway to healthcare access, quality, and patient outcomes. Research describing the roles of policy in dissemination and implementation (D&I) efforts is needed to resolve persistent knowledge gaps about policymakers' evidence use, how evidence-based policies are implemented and sustained, and methods to de-implement policies that are ineffective or cause harm. Few D&I theories, models, or frameworks (TMF) explicitly guide researchers in conceptualizing where, how, and when policy should be empirically investigated. We conducted and reflected on the results of a scoping review to identify gaps of existing Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework-guided policy D&I studies. We argue that rather than creating new TMF, researchers should optimize existing TMF to examine policy's role in D&I. We describe six recommendations to help researchers optimize existing D&I TMF. Recommendations are applied to EPIS, as one example for advancing TMF for policy D&I. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Specify dimensions of a policy's function (policy goals, type, contexts, capital exchanged). (2) Specify dimensions of a policy's form (origin, structure, dynamism, outcomes). (3) Identify and define the nonlinear phases of policy D&I across outer and inner contexts. (4) Describe the temporal roles that stakeholders play in policy D&I over time. (5) Consider policy-relevant outer and inner context adaptations. (6) Identify and describe bridging factors necessary for policy D&I success.

conclusionResearchers should use TMF to meaningfully conceptualize policy's role in D&I efforts to accelerate the public health impact of evidence-based policies or practices and de-implement ineffective and harmful policies. Applying these six recommendations to existing D&I TMF advances existing theoretical knowledge, especially EPIS application, rather than introducing new models. Using these recommendations will sensitize researchers to help them investigate the multifaceted roles policy can play within a causal pathway leading to D&I success.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeImplementation ScienceHumansPolicyPublic HealthContextFrameworkModelPolicyPoliticsTheory

Identifiers

PMID36503520
PMCPMC9742035

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.