ArticleBMC health services research2025
Organizational readiness for implementation: a qualitative assessment to explain survey responses.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determining the Organizational Culture and Readiness for Evidence-Based Practice Amongst Surgical Ward Nurses in Namibia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Assessment of organizational readiness for integrating primary eye care into primary healthcare: a mixed-method pre-implementation study in rural Xinjiang.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) Scale Among Nurses in Chinese Healthcare Institutions: A Multilevel Psychometric Assessment.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOne factor considered essential to successful implementation is organizational readiness. The purpose of this study was to explore ways to improve the measurement of organizational readiness, and in particular to refine a preliminary measure based on the Readiness = Motivation x innovation Specific Capacity x General Capacity (R = MC2) heuristic. We assessed the experiences of staff in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) designed to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) who previously completed the survey and aimed to understand their perspectives on why our data were positively skewed.
methodsWe conducted a series of qualitative interviews with FQHC employees who had previously completed the readiness survey and/or been involved with the distribution of the readiness survey. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, transcribed. Data was analyzed using an inductive approach to identify key emergent themes.
resultsAnalyses revealed numerous contributors to high organizational readiness assessment scores including concerns about confidentiality, social desirability bias, knowledge of respondents about the survey content, and the survey format. Specific to the survey format, we found that survey length and response scaling likely impacted scores and the overall survey experience. Lastly, some participants shared that the tendency for high scores may reflect actual perceptions because FQHC staff are passionate, work well in teams, and typically have already worked hard to improve CRCS rates through evidence-based interventions.
conclusionStudy findings reinforce the importance of collaborative and community-engaged survey design and the need to address the common challenges dissemination and implementation surveys may be vulnerable to. Lessons learned can be applied to other measurement work and surveys conducted across public health research. The findings will inform continued organizational readiness measure development and have implications for measurement of other factors influencing implementation.
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.