Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40846990›Full record

ReviewImplementation science communications2025

Key determinants in implementation processes: a systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Marin Schmitt, Maren Hawkins, Paul Florsheim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Implementing very-low-dose allergen exposure after suspected IgE-mediated reactions in infancy prior to allergist consultation.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

3 authors.

Marin SchmittZilber College of Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1240 N. 10th St., Milwaukee, WI, USA. marins@uwm.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2604-7854
Maren HawkinsDepartment of Public Health, Carroll University, 100 N. East Ave., Waukesha, WI, USA.
Paul FlorsheimZilber College of Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1240 N. 10th St., Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Funding

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Zilber School of Public Health Dissertation Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContextual factors, or determinants, are commonly assessed in implementation studies due to their impact on the implementation process. While a substantial number of determinants have been identified, less research has examined the strength of their impact on the implementation process. Identification of key determinants, or those found to play the biggest role in the implementation process more frequently, may assist in guiding implementation of health programs and services. Damschroder & Lowery (2013) developed a rating system to assess which Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs have the strongest impact on implementation. The purpose of this article was to systematically review articles that have utilized this rating system in order to identify key determinants.

methodsWe conducted forward citation searching of articles citing Damschroder & Lowery's (2013) rating criteria in three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) in February 2023. Included articles examined the magnitude and valence of factors affecting the implementation process. Quality appraisal was completed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Articles were included regardless of design, setting, location, or target population. A comprehensive examination of the determinants through numerous graphs and tables was conducted to identify key determinants.

resultsForty-eight articles were included in the final review. Eight key determinants were identified: Leadership Engagement, Formally Appointed Internal Implementation Leaders, Compatibility, Available Resources, External Change Agents, Champions, Relative Advantage, and Key Stakeholders.

conclusionsA more systematic approach to guiding implementation efforts will lead to the development of effective implementation strategies that could ultimately improve implementation outcomes. While quantifying qualitative data inherently removes some important nuance, by identifying key determinants, we hope to help researchers and practitioners identify which factors are likely to facilitate success of their implementation efforts.

trial registrationThe protocol for this systematic review was published with PROSPERO (CRD42023416340).

Indexed as

CFIRConsolidated Framework for Implementation ResearchDeterminantsImplementation scienceKey factorsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40846990
PMCPMC12374266

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.