ArticleBMJ open2025
Implementation science research in the intensive care unit: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Determinants of Adoption of a Mechanical Ventilation Dashboard in Intensive Care: Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations-Based, Single-Center, Cross-Sectional Evaluation.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Beyond Human Error: Building Intelligent Resilience for Medication Safety in the ICU.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Bridging evidence and practice: implementation science and bundled care strategies for fluid management in critically ill neonates.Frontiers in medicine · 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
objectivesThe purpose of this review is to identify the theoretical framework of implementation science in the intensive care unit (ICU), the determinants affecting implementation results, the intervention guided by a theoretical framework and the assessment of implementation effectiveness based on implementation science to guide further advancement of the implementation of evidence in the field of ICU.
designThe scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping Review Methodology Group's guidance and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews on 15 December 2024 (registration number: CRD42024614246). DATA SOURCES: We searched the following databases and sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and EBSCO. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies exploring the implementation science in the ICU that were published in English language. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers conducted the literature search by referring to the search strategies, and one researcher removed duplicates using EndNote. Two independent investigators screened the retrieved studies based on their titles and abstracts using eligibility criteria. Subsequently, the same two researchers conducted a full-text screening.
results13 articles were included: 8 qualitative studies, 3 mixed studies, 1 quasi-experimental study and 1 prospective observational study. Regarding the implementation of the theoretical framework for research, seven studies applied the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR), two studies applied the research implementation in health services framework (i-PARIHS) and one each of the research into the translating research into practice model, the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustain, the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance model and the behaviour change wheel. The CFIR was the most applied in the ICU, followed by the i-PARIHS. The literature demonstrated how implementation science is used and how it can reduce the gap between evidence and practice.
conclusionStrategies to support the implementation of accelerated evidence-based practice in the ICU are important, and more researchers need to conduct implementation science studies of the ICU to facilitate the translation of evidence and improve the quality of nursing practice in the future.
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.