ReviewBMJ open2024
Mapping review of 'proof-of-concept' in mental health implementation research using the TRL framework: a need for a better focus and conceptual clarification.
Review in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structuring Digital Mental Health Care Navigation: Co-Design Nominal Group Technique Study to Develop the MChart Definition and Typology of the Characteristics of Digital Mental Health Care Navigation Tools.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- A shared terminology for implementation research impact: Global Impact Analytics Framework (GIAF) Glossary.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Proof of concept studies in mental health systems research: strategy and steps.International journal of mental health systems · 2025Review
- Adaptation of the technology readiness levels for impact assessment in implementation sciences: The TRL-IS checklist.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProof-of-concept (PoC) development is a key step in implementation sciences. However, there is a dearth of studies in this area and the use of this term in health and social sciences is ambiguous.
objectiveThe objective was to remove the ambiguity surrounding the PoC and pilot study stage in the research development process using a standard system to rate the development of projects and applications provided by the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) framework.
designMapping review and critical analysis using TRL as the standard measure. SEARCH STRATEGY AND CHARTING
methodPubMed and PsycInfo databases were searched for papers that reported PoC studies of mental health interventions up to August 2023. Data were extracted, described and tabulated. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included were PoC studies in mental health implementation research. Exclusion criteria were research relating to biomedical (drugs) development, neurocognitive tools, neuropsychology, medical devices, literature reviews or discussion papers or that did not include the term 'proof-of-concept' in the title, abstract or text.
resultsFrom the 83 citations generated from the database search, 22 studies were included in this mapping review. Based on the study title, abstract and text, studies were categorised by research development stage according to the TRL framework. This review showed 95% of the studies used PoC incorrectly to describe the development stage of their research but which were not at this specific level of project development.
conclusionsThe TRL was a useful reference framework to improve terminological clarity around the term 'proof-of-concept' in implementation research. To extend the use of TRL in implementation sciences, this framework has now been adapted and validated to a health and social science-related research context accompanied by a health-related glossary of research process terms and definitions to promote a common vocabulary and shared understanding in implementation sciences.
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.