ArticleBMC global and public health2025
Case study guided development of an implementation science framework and checklist for campus sexual violence intervention.
Article in BMC global and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCampus sexual violence interventions must be scalable and effective in real-world settings. However, campus sexual violence interventions have unique implementation contexts that are not fully addressed by the most common implementation science (IS) frameworks. Hybrid studies-designs that incorporate effectiveness and implementation outcomes into a single trial-are an important tool to shorten the translation pipeline and enhance the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions. We conducted a series of case studies to explore the applicability of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to campus sexual violence interventions and to develop an adapted framework and checklist that could be used to advance the IS of campus sexual violence intervention research.
methodsWe developed four case studies of campus sexual violence interventions from the United States, South Africa, and Eswatini. Two were delivered digitally (United States and Eswatini) and two were delivered in person (South Africa and Eswatini). We analyzed these cases using a comparative design guided by CFIR's theorized constructs, aiming to identify IS concerns that are likely unique to campus sexual violence implementation (CSVI) research. These analyses were used to develop a CSVI-specific IS checklist and planning worksheet.
resultsWe identified multiple cross-cutting issues unique to the IS of campus sexual violence interventions: policy and legal framework, team praxis, relationships, context, infrastructure, and people. We situated these within a conceptual framework to reflect their intersections and developed a checklist of considerations at the planning, implementation, and post-project reflection phases.
conclusionsThe field of campus sexual violence intervention research will benefit from the integration of IS methodologies. While we found CFIR to be a useful starting point, it requires certain key modifications to fully support sexual violence intervention research. The adapted CFIR framework we developed from a cross-national set of case studies offers a valuable tool to meet the needs of funders, researchers, and practitioners in the global north and south.
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.