ArticleResearch square2025
Assessing PRISM context domains and RE-AIM outcomes: Data from use of the Iterative PRISM Webtool.
Article in Research square, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Use of an implementation science (IS) theory, model, or framework (TMF) is one of the hallmarks of a well-executed IS study. While these days TMFs are almost aways used for IS studies, the TMFs themselves are seldom evaluated. Understanding the relationships between the constructs within an IS TMF and their effect on the implementation and effectiveness outcomes can help to refine the TMF, advance IS, and assist implementers. Methods: We evaluated several hypotheses pertinent to the context domains and Reach, Effectiveness Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) outcomes from the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Framework (PRISM). Data for these evaluations emerged from the use of the Iterative PRISM (iPRISM) webtool, which includes 21 assessment questions that operationalize PRISM context and outcomes constructs. We tested 11 a priori hypotheses including relationships within and between different framework constructs and considered whether some of the webtool's assessment questions could be refined or changed to make the assessment more pragmatic. Results: A total of 348 clinical, community, and public health respondents completed the iPRISM survey as part of using the publicly available webtool. They reported on projects from a wide variety of clinical, community, and public health settings; in English and Spanish; and in different project phases. Seven of the 11 hypotheses were fully or partially supported (e.g., that ratings for Maintenance would be lower than other RE-AIM outcomes). One exception was that the hypothesis that the correlation between Reach and Effectiveness would be the lowest among RE-AIM outcomes was not supported. As hypothesized, scores on the equity items on the various RE-AIM dimensions (e.g., Reach) were consistently lower than general ratings for that dimension. Fewer of the hypotheses about the PRISM context items were supported, possibly due to there being only one item per contextual domain. Conclusions: The webtool questions provide a standardized way to operationalize PRISM constructs and initial norms for different items. Future research, including qualitative evaluation, is needed to replicate, explore, and understand the complex relationships found within RE-AIM outcomes, within PRISM context domains, and between PRISM context ratings and RE-AIM outcomes.
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.