ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Aligning implementation research and clinical operations: a partnership to promote implementation research in primary care.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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.
- Summation, Saliency, and Saturation (3S): a continuum for a practical approach to assessing sample adequacy and analytic completeness in qualitative implementation research.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rigorous evaluation of the implementation of evidence into routine practice in a health system requires strong alignment between research and clinical operational teams. Implementation researchers benefit from understanding operational processes and contextual factors when designing data collection while operational teams gain an understanding of implementation frameworks and outcomes using both qualitative and quantitative data. However, interventions to build capacity for these evaluation partnerships-particularly those tailored for clinical operational practitioners-are limited. We developed a model for a research-clinical operational partnership to build capacity for rigorous implementation evaluation. The model incorporated didactic and interactive education alongside small group discussion. Using reflective qualitative analysis, we show how the year-long partnership resulted in an effective collaboration that built capacity for rigorous operational evaluation, informed plans for data collection to include provider and patient barriers to adoption and increased awareness of implementation cost barriers. Improved capacity for implementation evaluation was demonstrated by the knowledge acquisition that resulted for both teams as a result of the collaboration and the education that penetrated to other aspects of the operational team's work beyond the immediate project. Programme successes and improvement opportunities were also identified. The partnership model shows how a formal research-clinical operational collaboration can build capacity for rigorous implementation evaluation and close the gap between implementation researchers and practitioners in a large health system. While larger-scale process evaluation is common, creating space for project-specific capacity-building initiatives, with varying levels of research involvement, can also advance the field of implementation science, offering new perspectives and partnerships, as well as opportunities to advance learning even for smaller-scale evidence translation.
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.