Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38937692›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

Development and usability testing of an online support tool to identify models and frameworks to inform implementation.

Lisa Strifler, Christine Fahim, Michael P Hillmer, Jan M Barnsley, Sharon E Straus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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

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

5 authors.

Lisa StriflerKnowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Christine FahimKnowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michael P HillmerInstitute of Health Policy Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jan M BarnsleyInstitute of Health Policy Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sharon E StrausKnowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. sharon.straus@utoronto.ca.

Funding

CIHR #146261
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTheories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are useful when implementing, evaluating and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. Yet it can be challenging to identify an appropriate TMF for an implementation project. We developed and tested the usability of an online tool to help individuals who are doing or supporting implementation practice activities to identify appropriate models and/or frameworks to inform their work.

methodsWe used methods guided by models and evidence on implementation science and user-centered design. Phases of tool development included applying findings from a scoping review of TMFs and interviews with 24 researchers/implementers on barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting TMFs. Based on interview findings, we categorized the TMFs by aim, stage of implementation, and target level of change to inform the tool's algorithm. We then conducted interviews with 10 end-users to test the usability of the prototype tool and administered the System Usability Scale (SUS). Usability issues were addressed and incorporated into the tool.

resultsWe developed Find TMF, an online tool consisting of 3-4 questions about the user's implementation project. The tool's algorithm matches key characteristics of the user's project (aim, stage, target change level) with characteristics of different TMFs and presents a list of candidate models/frameworks. Ten individuals from Canada or Australia participated in usability testing (mean SUS score 84.5, standard deviation 11.4). Overall, participants found the tool to be simple, easy to use and visually appealing with a useful output of candidate models/frameworks to consider for an implementation project. Users wanted additional instruction and guidance on what to expect from the tool and how to use the information in the output table. Tool improvements included incorporating an overview figure outlining the tool steps and output, displaying the tool questions on a single page, and clarifying the available functions of the results page, including adding direct links to the glossary and to complementary tools.

conclusionsFind TMF is an easy-to-use online tool that may benefit individuals who support implementation practice activities by making the vast number of models and frameworks more accessible, while also supporting a consistent approach to identifying and selecting relevant TMFs.

Indexed as

InternetHumansImplementation ScienceModels, TheoreticalFrameworkImplementationKnowledge translationModelSupport tool

Identifiers

PMID38937692
PMCPMC11209996

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.