Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40987478›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2025

On the same (evaluation) page: a novel approach to enhance mixed-methods implementation evaluation.

Laura Ellen Ashcraft, Amanda D Peeples, Daniel Hall, Mary Elizabeth Bowen, Rebecca T Brown, Judith A Long, Kirstin Manges Piazza, Octavia K Goodman, Connor M Warren, Lindsay R Pelcher and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Laura Ellen AshcraftCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Resaerch, and Promotion (CHERP), VA Medical Center Corporal Michael J Crescenz, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA lauraellen.ashcraft@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9957-0617
Amanda D PeeplesCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Resaerch, and Promotion (CHERP), VA Medical Center Corporal Michael J Crescenz, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4471-7957
Daniel HallCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion (CHERP) and Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6382-0522
Mary Elizabeth BowenGeriatrics and Extended Care Promotion, VA Medical Center Corporal Michael J Crescenz, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Rebecca T BrownCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Resaerch, and Promotion (CHERP), VA Medical Center Corporal Michael J Crescenz, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7483-4137
Judith A LongCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Resaerch, and Promotion (CHERP), VA Medical Center Corporal Michael J Crescenz, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kirstin Manges PiazzaCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion (CHERP), VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Octavia K GoodmanCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Resaerch, and Promotion (CHERP), VA Medical Center Corporal Michael J Crescenz, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Connor M WarrenCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Resaerch, and Promotion (CHERP), VA Medical Center Corporal Michael J Crescenz, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Lindsay R PelcherCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion (CHERP), VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-6007-4511
Rachel M WernerCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Resaerch, and Promotion (CHERP), VA Medical Center Corporal Michael J Crescenz, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3435-4221
Robert E BurkeCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Resaerch, and Promotion (CHERP), VA Medical Center Corporal Michael J Crescenz, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9521-8699

Funding

HSRD VA I50 HX003201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quality improvement and implementation science evaluations are often complex mixed methods approaches conducted by interdisciplinary teams. These efforts are challenging in normal circumstances; the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent shift to remote work have posed additional challenges to this type of work. Novel approaches, tools, and processes may be needed to improve the rigor and cohesion of mixed methods evaluations, especially with a team working remotely.Quality improvement and implementation science evaluations are often complex mixed methods approaches conducted by interdisciplinary teams. These efforts are challenging in normal circumstances; the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent shift to remote work have posed additional challenges to this type of work. Novel approaches, tools, and processes may be needed to improve the rigor and cohesion of mixed methods evaluations, especially with a team working remotely.Our aim was to create a rigorous evaluation plan for a large hybrid type III implementation-evaluation trial implementing new evidence-based processes at nine medical centers. Given the trial's complexity and a geographically-distributed remotely-working interdisciplinary team, we found that existing tools did not meet our needs. We thus created a novel process for developing a rigorous evaluation plan that others could replicate.This process has seven steps: 1) select a template and identify point person; 2) complete initial development; 3) obtain targeted asynchronous feedback; 4) identify and analyze gaps; 5) conduct targeted virtual synchronous discussion; 6) finalize working document; and 7) apply the plan and solicit ongoing feedback.Interdisciplinary quality improvement and implementation science project teams need tools and processes to ensure clear communication, well-ordered workflow, and rigorous operationalization of evaluation aims. The seven-step evaluation plan tool not only helped to enhance the rigor and execution of a large program evaluation, but the process also served an important convening function to enhance coordination between remote team members. Our work builds on existing processes for evaluation plan development while incorporating team science approaches.

Indexed as

COVID-19Implementation ScienceProgram EvaluationQuality ImprovementHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Implementation scienceQuality improvementQuality improvement methodologiesTeamsTeamwork

Identifiers

PMID40987478
PMCPMC12458776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.