Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36925845›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2022

Increasing Access to Organization Theories for Implementation Science.

Sarah A Birken, Linda K Ko, Mary Wangen, Cheyenne R Wagi, Miriam Bender, Per Nilsen, Mimi Choy-Brown, Alexandra Peluso, Jennifer Leeman

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

9 authors.

Sarah A BirkenDepartment of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.
Linda K KoWashington School of Public Health, Health Systems and Population Health, Seattle, WA, United States.
Mary WangenUNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Cheyenne R WagiDepartment of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.
Miriam BenderSue & Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.
Per NilsenDivision of Society and Health, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Mimi Choy-BrownSchool of Social Work, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States.
Alexandra PelusoDepartment of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.
Jennifer LeemanSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Organization theories offer numerous existing, highly relevant, yet largely untapped explanations of the organizational dynamics underlying evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation. Rooted in ideas regarding power, autonomy, and control, organization theories can explain how and why organizations adopt, implement, and sustain EBI use. Although they have gained visibility, organization theories remain underused in implementation research, perhaps due to their inaccessibility to implementation scientists. To improve access to organization theory among implementation scientists, we summarized organization theories with relevance to implementation science. Methods: Led by the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Organization Theory for Implementation Science workgroup, we employed a modified Delphi process to reach a consensus among 18 experts at the intersection of organization and implementation science regarding organization theories with relevance to implementation science. From texts that described the organization theories, using standardized abstraction forms, two investigators independently abstracted information regarding constructs, propositions regarding how or why constructs might influence implementation, the potential relevance of organization theories' propositions for implementation, and overviews of each theory. The investigators then reconciled discrepancies until reaching consensus. A third investigator reviewed reconciled abstraction forms for accuracy, coherence, and completeness. Findings: We identified nine organization theories with relevance to implementation science: contingency, complexity, institutional, network, organizational learning, resource dependence, sociotechnical, and transaction cost economics. From the theories, we abstracted 70 constructs and 65 propositions. An example proposition from institutional theory is: "Coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures contribute to organizations…within an organizational field [becoming increasingly similar]." These propositions can be operationalized as levers to facilitate EBI implementation. Conclusions: To increase use in the field, organization theories must be made more accessible to implementation scientists. The abstraction forms developed in this study are now publicly available on the CPCRN website with the goal of increasing access to organization theories among an interdisciplinary audience of implementation scientists through the CPCRN Scholars program and other venues. Next steps include consolidating organization theory constructs into domains and translating the resulting framework for use among researchers, policymakers and practitioners, aiding them in accounting for a comprehensive set of organization theory constructs thought to influence EBI implementation.

Indexed as

adoptionconstructsimplementationorganization theorypropositionssustainment

Identifiers

PMID36925845
PMCPMC10012830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read1
reference markers read4
identifiers read41
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.