ArticleImplementation science : IS2024
Establishing evidence criteria for implementation strategies in the US: a Delphi study for HIV services.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Navigating grey areas in HIV and mental health implementation science.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are no criteria specifically for evaluating the quality of implementation research and recommending implementation strategies likely to have impact to practitioners. We describe the development and application of the Best Practices Tool, a set of criteria to evaluate the evidence supporting HIV-specific implementation strategies.
methodsWe developed the Best Practices Tool from 2022-2023 in three phases. (1) We developed a draft tool and criteria based on a literature review and key informant interviews. We purposively selected and recruited by email interview participants representing a mix of expertise in HIV service delivery, quality improvement, and implementation science. (2) The tool was then informed and revised through two e-Delphi rounds using a survey delivered online through Qualtrics. The first and second round Delphi surveys consisted of 71 and 52 open and close-ended questions, respectively, asking participants to evaluate, confirm, and make suggestions on different aspects of the rubric. After each survey round, data were analyzed and synthesized as appropriate; and the tool and criteria were revised. (3) We then applied the tool to a set of research studies assessing implementation strategies designed to promote the adoption and uptake of evidence-based HIV interventions to assess reliable application of the tool and criteria.
resultsOur initial literature review yielded existing tools for evaluating intervention-level evidence. For a strategy-level tool, additions emerged from interviews, for example, a need to consider the context and specification of strategies. Revisions were made after both Delphi rounds resulting in the confirmation of five evaluation domains - research design, implementation outcomes, limitations and rigor, strategy specification, and equity - and four evidence levels - best, promising, more evidence needed, and harmful. For most domains, criteria were specified at each evidence level. After an initial pilot round to develop an application process and provide training, we achieved 98% reliability when applying the criteria to 18 implementation strategies.
conclusionsWe developed a tool to evaluate the evidence supporting implementation strategies for HIV services. Although specific to HIV in the US, this tool is adaptable for evaluating strategies in other health areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.