ReviewImplementation science communications2026
Evaluating the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research in primary care settings: a systematic review.
Review in Implementation science communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementing Osteoporosis Screening in Hong Kong: A CFIR-Guided Qualitative Study of Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives.Journal of general internal 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious systematic reviews have examined the use of the 2009 version of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) in healthcare settings. However, these reviews primarily focused on studies conducted in secondary and tertiary care, with limited attention to its application in primary care. The use of the CFIR in primary care remains underexplored. Given the unique attributes of primary care-guiding principles such as first-contact care, continuity, comprehensiveness, coordination, and people-centeredness-findings from studies in other healthcare settings may not fully translate to the primary care context. This systematic review aimed to investigate how the CFIR has been applied in primary care, evaluate how it aligns with the guiding principles of primary care, and propose refinements to enhance its future application.
methodsWe searched Scopus and PubMed for publications including the terms CFIR and primary care from 2009 to February 15, 2024. We included studies that addressed clinical, organizational, or service delivery interventions implemented in primary care settings interventions within primary care settings. Data abstraction focused on several variables, including study design and location, participants, health topic, CFIR domains and constructs used, rationale for use, and additional implementation frameworks. We also evaluated how the applied constructs related to the WHO guiding principles of primary care.
resultsOut of 394 studies, 105 met the inclusion criteria. The use of the CFIR in primary care steadily increased between 2015 and 2024. Most studies were qualitative (80.9%), focused on non-communicable diseases (19%), conducted during the post-implementation phase (43.8%), centered on healthcare workers' perceptions (40%), and conducted in high-income country (83%). Most studies (61%) applied the five domains of the CFIR. However, 53.3% of the studies did not reported the rationale for selecting the domains. Some CFIR constructs investigated aligned with the guiding principles of primary care, particularly people-centeredness and comprehensiveness.
conclusionsRefinements for applying the CFIR in primary care include enhancing community participation throughout the research process, from study design to interpretation and development of practice recommendations; reporting the rationale for selecting CFIR constructs, including their alignment with the guiding principles of primary care; increasing pre-implementation evaluation to support longitudinal, formative implementation research; and strengthening the role of implementation research in healthcare policies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/4yq2f.
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.