Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39308906›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2024

Implementation science: why should we care?

Frances Chu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

1 author.

Frances Chufrances.chu@providence.org Medical Librarian, Providence Swedish, 747 Broadway, Seattle, WA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9584-9642

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a 17-year gap between the publication of research which proves an intervention is efficacious and effective and the implementation of that same intervention into practice [1]. In behavioral health, only 14% of successful interventions are integrated into actual practice [2]. As such, Implementation Science is envisioned to address the research to practice gap. This research methodology becomes important as it looks to investigate how to get interventions to become embedded in practice and de-implement unproven or disproven interventions that may be harmful and/or ineffective for patients. The aim of this commentary is to raise awareness of health sciences librarians/information specialists about this research arena and encourage health sciences librarians to envision how they could be involved in implementation science projects and teams or even use implementation science in their practice.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceHumansLibrariansLibraries, MedicalImplementation Science

Identifiers

PMID39308906
PMCPMC11412152

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.