SynthesisBMC health services research2025
Evaluation of health technology implementation in the Brazilian public health system: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
contextThe implementation of technologies in the Unified Health System (SUS) faces significant challenges in Brazil due to the diversity of contexts, the specificities of the technologies, and resource limitations. This study aimed to identify and critically describe the theoretical models and strategies adopted, as well as the outcomes most frequently reported in SUS implementation studies.
methodsThe primary research question was: “How are health technologies implemented within the SUS context, and what outcomes are evaluated?”. A systematic literature search was conducted, followed by independent reviewers’ screening and selection of articles. Studies published up to April 2024 that described the implementation process within the SUS and reported at least one of the following outcomes were included: acceptability, adoption, adequacy, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, implementation cost, and sustainability. Non-original studies or those published in languages other than Portuguese, English, or Spanish were excluded.
resultsA total of 45 studies were included, most of which were conducted in the Southeast region (53.0%) and focused on evaluating the implementation of good health practice processes (42.0%), with an emphasis on the perspectives of health professionals. Consolidated implementation frameworks were employed in 60% of the studies, with the framework from the Australian organization Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) being the most frequently applied (17 studies), followed by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework (RE-AIM) used in seven studies, and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) in three studies. Among the outcomes of interest, adequacy was the most frequently analyzed (66.7%), followed by penetration (24.4%) and fidelity (20.0%). In contrast, the outcomes of implementation cost (4.4%) and sustainability (4.4%) were the least explored.
conclusionsThis study highlights the variability in the models and methods used to evaluate the implementation of health technologies in the SUS. The absence of standardized approaches underscores the need for consistent guidelines to guide the implementation process. Future studies should prioritize outcomes that capture the impact of implementation strategies within universal health systems, such as the SUS.
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.