ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Expanding the pragmatic lens in implementation science: why stakeholder perspectives matter.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- ADAPT and FRAME guided implementation science approach to improve care transitions in older colorectal surgery patients: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- A Contextually Grounded Competence Framework for a Dental Education: A Multi-Method, Stakeholder-Informed Development Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Optimization of care and recovery in older colorectal cancer surgery patients: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation pilot study protocol.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- A process evaluation of early palliative care implementation in the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2026Article
- Developing theoretically grounded strategies to enable and promote patient and public involvement in implementation research studies.Research involvement and engagement · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.