Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36925811›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2022

Reflections on 10 years of effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies.

Geoffrey M Curran, Sara J Landes, Sacha A McBain, Jeffrey M Pyne, Justin D Smith, Maria E Fernandez, David A Chambers, Brian S Mittman

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 214 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
214citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

214 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

154 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

8 authors.

Geoffrey M CurranDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Sara J LandesBehavioral Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Sacha A McBainDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Jeffrey M PyneCenter for Mental Health Outcomes Research, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, North Little Rock, AR, United States.
Justin D SmithDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.
Maria E FernandezCenter for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, University of Texas, Houston, TX, United States.
David A ChambersDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, United States.
Brian S MittmanDepartment of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.

Funding

Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR002538 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI HESS, RACHEL, MAJERSIK, JENNIFER JUHL · 2018 to 2022
$26.0M
Expanding Translational Research in ArkansasUL1TR003107 · NCATS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI JAMES, LAURA P · 2019 to 2023
$21.6M
Community Intervention to Reduce CardiovascuLar Disease in Chicago (CIRCL-Chicago)UH3HL154297 · NHLBI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Abel N. Kho, JUSTIN D SMITH · 2023 to 2026
$4.4M
Community Intervention to Reduce CardiovascuLar Disease in Chicago (CIRCL-Chicago)UG3HL154297 · NHLBI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI DAVIS, PARIS, KHO, ABEL N. · 2020 to 2022
$3.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002538NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003107NHLBI NIH HHS UG3 HL154297NHLBI NIH HHS UH3 HL154297
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article provides new reflections and recommendations from authors of the initial effectiveness-implementation hybrid study manuscript and additional experts in their conceptualization and application. Given the widespread and continued use of hybrid studies, critical appraisals are necessary. The article offers reflections across five conceptual and methodological areas. It begins with the recommendation to replace the term "design" in favor of "study." The use of the term "design" and the explicit focus on trial methodology in the original paper created confusion. The essence of hybrid studies is combining research questions concerning intervention effectiveness and implementation within the same study, and this can and should be achieved by applying a full range of research designs. Supporting this recommendation, the article then offers guidance on selecting a hybrid study type based on evidentiary and contextual information and stakeholder concerns/preferences. A series of questions are presented that have been designed to help investigators select the most appropriate hybrid type for their study situation. The article also provides a critique on the hybrid 1-2-3 typology and offers reflections on when and how to use the typology moving forward. Further, the article offers recommendations on research designs that align with each hybrid study type. Lastly, the article offers thoughts on how to integrate costs analyses into hybrid studies.

Indexed as

cost analysiseffectiveness-implementation hybridhealth services researchhybrid studiesimplementation scienceresearch design

Identifiers

PMID36925811
PMCPMC10012680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.