ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2025
Identifying Mechanisms of Action for Implementation Strategies Using a Retrospective Implementation Mapping Logic Model Approach.
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2025. 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.
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
Understanding causal mechanisms for implementation strategies is a priority for implementation and health promotion research. Logic models are helpful for understanding and illustrating mechanisms through which implementation strategies operate. Little guidance exists for developing logic models for existing implementation strategies. We demonstrate how to use Implementation Mapping (IM) in a retrospective manner to develop an IMap Logic Model for a social-emotional learning program implemented at Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Houston (BGCGH). To inform logic model development, we used qualitative interview data (from implementers) and conversations with program organizers. To develop the logic model, we specified the most accessible information, beginning with the program and health-related outcomes. We then specified the implementation strategies and implementation outcomes, followed by change methods (i.e., theoretical techniques that influence positive change in determinants), practical applications (i.e., specific techniques for operationalizing change methods), and determinants (factors that influence implementation) and other contextual factors. The effectiveness outcomes for the program were to improve emotion regulation and social skills among youth. Clinician implementers delivered the program and BGCGH club directors and staff supported delivery. The implementation strategies were (1) group leader trainings; (2) implementation guide; (3) BGCGH staff training; (4) needs assessments (via site visits); (5) follow-up meetings; and (6) pilot program check-in meetings. Collectively, the strategies used various practical applications (e.g., scenario discussions, reviewing procedures) to operationalize change methods (e.g., active learning, participatory problem solving) to address determinants (e.g., knowledge, interorganizational relationships). The strategy set out to improve implementation behaviors (e.g., delivering program components as prescribed) and implementation outcomes (e.g., fidelity). The developed IMap Logic Model can be used to inform implementation evaluation efforts by helping identify outcomes, mediators, and moderators. The logic model can also be used to identify gaps that, if addressed, can help ongoing implementation and scale-up efforts.
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.