Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40437531›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2025

Advancing the selection of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks: a scoping review and the development of the SELECT-IT meta-framework.

Guillaume Fontaine, Meagan Mooney, Joshua Porat-Dahlerbruch, Katherine Cahir, Moriah Ellen, Anne Spinewine, Natalie Taylor, Rachael Laritz, Ève Bourbeau-Allard, Jeremy M Grimshaw

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Guillaume FontaineIngram School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, 680 Rue Sherbrooke O #1800, Montréal, QC, H3A 2M7, Canada. guil.fontaine@mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-7806-814X
Meagan MooneyIngram School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, 680 Rue Sherbrooke O #1800, Montréal, QC, H3A 2M7, Canada.
Joshua Porat-DahlerbruchSchool of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Katherine CahirSchool of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Moriah EllenDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.
Anne SpinewineClinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Natalie TaylorSchool of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rachael LaritzCentre for Nursing Research, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Ève Bourbeau-AllardCentre for Nursing Research, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Jeremy M GrimshawCentre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

Technology Research in Chronic & Critical IllnessT32NR008857 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Young Ji Lee · 2005 to 2026
$4.0M
NINR NIH HHS T32 NR008857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTheories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) are central to implementation practice and research. Selecting one or more TMF(s) for a project remains challenging due to numerous options and limited guidance. This study aimed to (1) identify and categorize the reported purposes and attributes of TMFs, as well as the practical considerations of TMF users, and (2) synthesize these findings into a meta-framework that supports implementation practitioners and researchers in selecting TMFs.

methodsA scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Medline, Embase, and CINAHL were searched to identify articles on the selection of TMFs. Articles were selected and data extracted using Covidence. Inductive thematic analysis was used to refine and categorize purposes, attributes and practical considerations. The meta-framework was developed by mapping these categories onto a sequential process, pilot-testing through case studies, and iteratively refining it based on team feedback.

resultsOf 9,276 records, 43 articles (2005-2024) were included. Most articles reported TMF purposes (41 articles), followed by attributes (30) and practical considerations (13). Seven distinct purposes were identified: (1) enhancing conceptual clarity, (2) anticipating change and guiding inquiry, (3) guiding the implementation process, (4) guiding identification of determinants, (5) guiding design and adaptation of strategies, (6) guiding evaluation and causal explanation, and (7) guiding interpretation and dissemination. Additionally, 24 TMF attributes were grouped into five domains: clarity and structure, scientific strength and evidence, applicability and usability, equity and sociocultural responsiveness, and system and partner integration. Ten practical considerations were grouped into three domains: team expertise and readiness, resource availability, and project fit. These findings informed the development of the Systematic Evaluation and Selection of Implementation Science Theories, Models and Frameworks (SELECT-IT) meta-framework, comprising four steps: (1) determine the purpose(s) of using TMF(s); (2) identify potential TMFs; (3) evaluate short-listed TMFs against attributes; and (4) assess practical considerations of using TMF(s) within the project context. A worked example and two user-friendly worksheets illustrate its utility.

conclusionsThis study advances understanding of the selection of implementation science TMFs by distinguishing inherent TMF attributes from practical considerations. The SELECT-IT meta-framework offers a structured, context-sensitive approach for selecting appropriate TMFs. Future research should evaluate its validity and utility across diverse contexts.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceModels, TheoreticalHumansEvidence-based practiceFrameworkImplementation practiceImplementation researchKnowledge translationModelQuality improvementTheoretical approachesTheory

Identifiers

PMID40437531
PMCPMC12117738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.