Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40270053›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2025

Expanding the pragmatic lens in implementation science: why stakeholder perspectives matter.

Richard Boulton, Antonina Semkina, Fiona Jones, Nick Sevdalis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors.

Richard BoultonSchool of Health & Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, London, UK. rboulton@sgul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1420-8473
Antonina SemkinaNIHR Policy Research Unit in Health and Social Care Workforce, The Policy Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Fiona JonesSchool of Health & Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Nick SevdalisCentre for Behavioural and Implementation Science Interventions, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPragmatism is important in implementation science to ensure that implementation methods reflect the practical concerns of the stakeholders and services involved in change. To evaluate the usability of these methods, pragmatic measures have been developed using psychometrics. However, existing approaches have predominantly inherited a definition of pragmatism from the evidence-based healthcare movement. These metrics may not reflect concerns with pragmatism that public stakeholders (defined as those with expertise by experience of healthcare systems) may have with implementation science.

aimsConsequently, our aim was to carry out participatory research to explore stakeholder views of pragmatic measures in implementation science theory.

methodsWe convened a working group of eight stakeholders. To facilitate discussion, we created educational materials, including a video and flyer. The working group conducted three meetings, engaging in abductive analysis to investigate the presented issues.

resultsStakeholders expressed concerns about the restricted definition of pragmatism, the potential for biases in measurement, and the necessity for a holistic, pluralistic approach that incorporates diverse perspectives when developing and evaluating implementation theory and metrics. These findings underscore the risk of distorting the development of implementation science methods without the input and scrutiny of stakeholders. Neglecting the wider application of pragmatic philosophy in implementation science could limit stakeholder involvement in the design of implementation methods and service transformation.

conclusionsThis study, guided by experts with lived experience in healthcare services, opens doors for considering pragmatic philosophy in the evolution of pragmatic implementation measures and metrics, offering numerous promising directions for further exploration.

Indexed as

Implementation determinantsImplementation outcomesImplementation sciencePatient and public involvementPragmatic measuresPragmatismPsychometricsStakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID40270053
PMCPMC12016074

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.