Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37845686›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2023

A scoping review of equity-focused implementation theories, models and frameworks in healthcare and their application in addressing ethnicity-related health inequities.

Papillon Gustafson, Yasmin Abdul Aziz, Michelle Lambert, Karen Bartholomew, Nicole Rankin, Adam Fusheini, Rachel Brown, Peter Carswell, Mihi Ratima, Patricia Priest and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Mobile Cancer Screening Programs: A Systematic Review of Implementation Challenges and Population Access.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

11 authors.

Papillon GustafsonNgāi Tahu Māori Health Research Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin Campus, Dunedin, Aotearoa, PO Box 56, 9054, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8645-8490
Yasmin Abdul AzizNgāi Tahu Māori Health Research Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin Campus, Dunedin, Aotearoa, PO Box 56, 9054, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0564-664X
Michelle LambertNgāi Tahu Māori Health Research Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin Campus, Dunedin, Aotearoa, PO Box 56, 9054, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0439-7557
Karen BartholomewTe Whatu Ora Waitematā and Te Toka Tumai Auckland, Auckland, Aotearoa, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1517-2134
Nicole RankinEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Adam FusheiniPreventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin Campus, Dunedin, Aotearoa, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7896-3841
Rachel BrownNational Hauora Coalition, Auckland, Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Peter CarswellSynergia Ltd, Auckland, Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Mihi RatimaTaumata Associates, Hāwera, Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Patricia PriestPreventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin Campus, Dunedin, Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Sue CrengleNgāi Tahu Māori Health Research Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin Campus, Dunedin, Aotearoa, PO Box 56, 9054, New Zealand. sue.crengle@otago.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9367-1492

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInequities in implementation contribute to the unequal benefit of health interventions between groups of people with differing levels of advantage in society. Implementation science theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) provide a theoretical basis for understanding the multi-level factors that influence implementation outcomes and are used to guide implementation processes. This study aimed to identify and analyse TMFs that have an equity focus or have been used to implement interventions in populations who experience ethnicity or 'race'-related health inequities.

methodsA scoping review was conducted to identify the relevant literature published from January 2011 to April 2022 by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE and CINAHL), the Dissemination and Implementation model database, hand-searching key journals and searching the reference lists and citations of studies that met the inclusion criteria. Titles, abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by at least two researchers. Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria, including the study characteristics, TMF description and operationalisation. TMFs were categorised as determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, process models and evaluation frameworks according to their overarching aim and described with respect to how equity and system-level factors influencing implementation were incorporated.

resultsDatabase searches yielded 610 results, 70 of which were eligible for full-text review, and 18 met the inclusion criteria. A further eight publications were identified from additional sources. In total, 26 papers describing 15 TMFs and their operationalisation were included. Categorisation resulted in four determinant frameworks, one implementation theory, six process models and three evaluation frameworks. One framework included elements of determinant, process and evaluation TMFs and was therefore classified as a 'hybrid' framework. TMFs varied in their equity and systems focus. Twelve TMFs had an equity focus and three were established TMFs applied in an equity context. All TMFs at least partially considered systems-level factors, with five fully considering macro-, meso- and micro-level influences on equity and implementation.

conclusionsThis scoping review identifies and summarises the implementation science TMFs available to support equity-focused implementation. This review may be used as a resource to guide TMF selection and illustrate how TMFs have been utilised in equity-focused implementation activities.

Indexed as

EthnicityHealth FacilitiesDelivery of Health CareHumansEthnic inequitiesFrameworksHealth inequityImplementationModelsScoping reviewTheories

Identifiers

PMID37845686
PMCPMC10578009

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.