ArticleFrontiers in health services2024
Changing hearts and minds: theorizing how, when, and under what conditions three social influence implementation strategies work.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing a multimodal lifestyle intervention for depression and overweight in primary and secondary care: protocol for an implementation study exploring what works, how, and under what conditions.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Champions and early adopters in an implementation-effectiveness study of shared decision making: implications for interpersonal strategies.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- How and in what circumstances does facilitation work for residential aged care staff in the implementation of palliative care interventions? A realist review.Palliative medicine · 2026Review
- Exploring the Cognitive Phenotypes of Implementation Barriers to Analgesia and Sedation Management Among ICU Nurses: A Q Methodology Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Making Sense of Implementation Science Planning Tools: Addressing Implementation Challenges in Substance Use Disorder and Mental Health Treatment.Global implementation research and applications · 2026Review
- Failing to succeed: advancing mechanistic understanding of implementation strategies through retrospective and prospective use of causal pathway diagrams.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Failing to Succeed: Advancing Mechanistic Understanding of Implementation Strategies Through Retrospective and Prospective Use of Causal Pathway Diagrams.Research square · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing pulmonary rehabilitation guidelines in China: a qualitative study using implementation science frameworks.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- The effect of caregiver opinion leaders to increase demand for evidence-based practices for youth anxiety: A cluster randomized controlled trial.Implementation research and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Opinion leadership, educational outreach visiting, and innovation championing are commonly used strategies to address barriers to implementing innovations and evidence-based practices in healthcare settings. Despite voluminous research, ambiguities persist in how these strategies work and under what conditions they work well, work poorly, or work at all. The current paper develops middle-range theories to address this gap. Methods: Conceptual articles, systematic reviews, and empirical studies informed the development of causal pathway diagrams (CPDs). CPDs are visualization tools for depicting and theorizing about the causal process through which strategies operate, including the mechanisms they activate, the barriers they address, and the proximal and distal outcomes they produce. CPDs also clarify the contextual conditions (i.e., preconditions and moderators) that influence whether, and to what extent, the strategy's causal process unfolds successfully. Expert panels of implementation scientists and health professionals rated the plausibility of these preliminary CPDs and offered comments and suggestions on them. Findings: Theoretically, opinion leadership addresses potential adopters' uncertainty about likely consequences of innovation use (determinant) by promoting positive attitude formation about the innovation (mechanism), which results in an adoption decision (proximal outcome), which leads to innovation use (intermediate outcome). As this causal process repeats, penetration, or spread of innovation use, occurs (distal outcome). Educational outreach visiting addresses knowledge barriers, attitudinal barriers, and behavioral barriers (determinants) by promoting critical thinking and reflection about evidence and practice (mechanism), which results in behavioral intention (proximal outcome), behavior change (intermediate outcome), and fidelity, or guideline adherence (distal outcome). Innovation championing addresses organizational inertia, indifference, and resistance (determinants) by promoting buy-in to the vision, fostering a positive implementation climate, and increasing collective efficacy (mechanisms), which leads to participation in implementation activities (proximal outcome), initial use of the innovation with increasing skill (intermediate outcome) and, ultimately, greater penetration and fidelity (distal outcomes). Experts found the preliminary CPDs plausible or highly plausible and suggested additional mechanisms, moderators, and preconditions, which were used to amend the initial CPD. Discussion: The middle-range theories depicted in the CPDs furnish testable propositions for implementation research and offer guidance for selecting, designing, and evaluating these social influence implementation strategies in both research studies and practice settings.
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.