Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36526311›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Implementation Science Research Project Appraisal Criteria (ImpResPAC) tool: a study protocol.

Chloe Sweetnam, Lucy Goulding, Rachel E Davis, Zarnie Khadjesari, Annette Boaz, Andy Healey, Nick Sevdalis, Ioannis Bakolis, Louise Hull

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Chloe SweetnamNeurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA chloesweetnam@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5487-1491
Lucy GouldingCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5074-7071
Rachel E DavisCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2406-7181
Zarnie KhadjesariBehavioural and Implementation Science Research Group, School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2958-9555
Annette BoazDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0557-1294
Andy HealeyCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2013-3161
Nick SevdalisCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2406-7181
Ioannis BakolisCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4800-1630
Louise HullCentre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4660-4005

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe need for quantitative criteria to appraise the quality of implementation research has recently been highlighted to improve methodological rigour. The Implementation Science Research development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide provide methodological guidance and recommendations on how to design high-quality implementation research. This protocol reports on the development of the Implementation Science Research Project Appraisal Criteria (ImpResPAC) tool, a quantitative appraisal tool, developed based on the structure and content of the ImpRes tool and supplementary guide, to evaluate the conceptual and methodological quality of implementation research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study employs a three-stage sequential mixed-methods design. During stage 1, the research team will map core domains of the ImpRes tool, guidance and recommendations contained in the supplementary guide and within the literature, to ImpResPAC. In stage 2, an international multidisciplinary expert group, recruited through purposive sampling, will inform the refinement of ImpResPAC, including content, scoring system and user instructions. In stage 3, an extensive psychometric evaluation of ImpResPAC, that was created in stage 1 and refined in stage 2, will be conducted. The scaling assumptions (inter-item and item-total correlations), reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater) and validity (construct and convergent validity) will be investigated by applying ImpResPAC to 50 protocols published in ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will involve human participants. This study has been registered and minimal risk ethical clearance granted by The Research Ethics Office, King's College London (reference number MRA-20/21-20807). Participants will receive written information on the study via email and will provide e-consent if they wish to participate. We will use traditional academic modalities of dissemination (eg, conferences and publications).

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceResearch DesignHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsResearch PersonnelInternational health servicesOrganisation of health servicesProtocols & guidelinesQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID36526311
PMCPMC9764655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.