ArticleBMJ open2024
Updating the critical steps of the quality implementation framework: a protocol for an umbrella review of reviews.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Updating the critical steps of the quality implementation framework: an umbrella review of reviews.Implementation science communications · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImplementation science focuses on improving the dissemination, uptake and adoption of evidence into practice. Over the last decade, implementation science research has proliferated, particularly in healthcare and social science. The key synthesis of implementation frameworks conducted by Meyers and colleagues in 2012, and the resulting Quality Implementation Framework, has yet to be updated to incorporate this research. This protocol proposes an umbrella review of reviews (RORs) to synthesise the literature since 2012 on implementation science in the fields of healthcare and social science and provides recommendations for an updated Quality Implementation Framework. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This ROR will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO and Web of Science) will be used to identify peer-reviewed meta-analyses, systematic reviews and scoping reviews published in the English language since January 2012 and report on the development, application or update of one or more implementation frameworks in healthcare or social science contexts. Multiple reviewers will be involved in the screening of articles and extraction of data, and the quality of reviews will be assessed using the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. The outcome of interest is the content of implementation science frameworks reported in the included reviews. The content of these frameworks will be synthesised, aggregated and mapped to the four phases and 14 steps outlined in the original Quality Implementation Framework using both deductive and inductive analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as this ROR protocol and the resulting ROR do not involve primary data collection. The protocol as well as the ROR will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023475994.
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.