Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37089986›Full record

ArticleImplementation research and practice

Refining contextual inquiry to maximize generalizability and accelerate the implementation process.

Molly Davis, Rinad S Beidas

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06562439 (Early Identification and Intervention Of Developmental Delay Among Infants And Toddlers With Sickle Cell Disease Using the Sickle Cell Caregiver Collaboration for Child Development), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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.

NCT06562439 nawithdrawnnot on this map

Early Identification and Intervention Of Developmental Delay Among Infants And Toddlers With Sickle Cell Disease Using the Sickle Cell Caregiver Collaboration for Child Development (SCCCD) Intervention

TypeinterventionalSponsorWashington University School of MedicineRan2025 to 2028Enrolled0ConditionsSickle Cell DiseaseArmsSickle Cell Collaboration for Child Development
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

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

2 authors.

Molly DavisDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Rinad S BeidasDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

The academic-community experience (ACE): A postdoctoral training fellowship in implementation science to promote mental healthT32MH109433 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI David S Mandell · 2017 to 2026
$2.4M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH109433
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: While contextual inquiry, or in-depth mixed-methods work to study the implementation context, is critical for understanding the setting in which a behavioral health evidence-based practice (EBP) will be implemented, current methods to determine potential barriers and facilitators to implementation are often conducted in a single setting and/or for a single EBP per study, often taking 1-2 years to complete. To maximize generalizability and reduce the research-to-practice gap efficiently, it is important to move toward cross-sector and/or cross-EBP contextual inquiry. Methods: In this viewpoint, we argue for (a) collaborative research studies that seek to identify determinants of implementation that are similar and unique across different settings and EBPs, using rapid approaches when possible; (b) enhanced synthesis of existing research on implementation determinants to minimize duplication of contextual inquiry efforts; and (c) clear rationale for why additional in-depth or rapid contextual inquiry is needed before it is conducted. Throughout this viewpoint, the need to balance scientific rigor and speed are considered. Conclusions: Overall, this viewpoint seeks to encourage researchers to consolidate and share knowledge on barriers and facilitators to implementation to prepare for the scaling out of much needed implementation strategies and interventions for improving health. Plain language summary: Significant time and resources are often devoted to understanding what makes it easier or harder to use best practices for behavioral health concerns in health care settings. The goal of the current viewpoint is to offer ways to streamline this process so that high-quality behavioral health services can reach the patients that need them more quickly. In particular, we advocate for ways to share knowledge among researchers and learn from prior findings to more efficiently identify what makes it easier or harder to use best practices for addressing behavioral health problems in a given setting (e.g., primary care, schools, specialty mental health).

Indexed as

Contextual inquirydeterminantsgeneralizability

Identifiers

PMID37089986
PMCPMC9978671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.