ReviewEvaluation & the health professions2026
Exploring Stakeholder Involvement in Intervention Implementation Studies: Systematic Evidence Synthesis With an Evidence Gap Map Approach.
Review in Evaluation & the health professions, 2026. 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.
- Participatory approaches for tailoring implementation strategies in healthcare settings: a scoping review of contemporary literature (2019-2024).Implementation science communications · 2026Review
- Optimising pain management in intensive care setting: Insights from a realist evaluation.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- No healthy schools without healthy teachers: a scoping review on implementation determinants, strategies and outcomes of mental health-promoting interventions for school teachers.BMC public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stakeholder involvement (SI) is essential for effective and sustainable intervention implementation, yet practical guidance is lacking. This study mapped SI use in implementation science studies, identified gaps, and proposed a practical framework for improved SI planning. Using an evidence gap map approach, this study built on Mielke et al.'s (2022) methodology, which identified implementation studies from 2015-2020. The search was updated to include studies from 2021-2023 from PubMed, using the same search strategy and inclusion criteria. Data extraction followed the Guidance for Reporting on Involvement of Patients and the Public reporting checklist. From 10,184 studies, a random sample of 2,005 was screened, adding 162 implementation science studies to Mielke et al.'s 110, totaling 272 studies for SI analysis. SI was reported in 89% of studies, but often lacked depth and strategic planning. Stakeholders were mainly engaged during the preparatory phase. Most studies involved micro- and meso-level stakeholders, rarely including macro-level stakeholders. Few described stakeholder selection or preparation. SI was mostly consultative, via interviews, surveys, and focus groups, with limited active collaboration. SI processes and costs were rarely evaluated. Our findings underscore the need for structured, comprehensive SI planning and offer practical recommendations to strengthen SI efforts in implementation research.
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.