Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41888980›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2026

A shared terminology for implementation research impact: Global Impact Analytics Framework (GIAF) Glossary.

Sue Lukersmith, Luis Salvador-Carulla, Mencia Ruiz Gutiérrez Colosia, Cindy Woods, Elisabeth Zeilinger, Giulio Castelpietra, GIAF Taxonomy and Glossary Expert Panel Group (Group co-authors)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sue LukersmithFaculty of Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia. sue.lukersmith@canberra.edu.au.
Luis Salvador-CarullaFaculty of Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
Mencia Ruiz Gutiérrez ColosiaUniversidad Loyola, Sevilla, Spain.
Cindy WoodsFaculty of Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
Elisabeth ZeilingerUniversity of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Giulio CastelpietraFaculty of Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
GIAF Taxonomy and Glossary Expert Panel Group (Group co-authors)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past two decades, the growing number of theories, models and frameworks developed in implementation research has generated a significant problem of terminological variability. Evidence shows that implementation research has reached a point in time, when the absence of a common vocabulary and a related taxonomy is hampering the advancement of comparative research in impact analysis, particularly in the "process" or throughput phase. The Glossary of terms is part of the Global Impact Analytics Framework (GIAF) Toolkit.

aimThis paper details the development of the GIAF Glossary for disambiguation of implementation research terms related to the process of impact analysis, and to document the development and adoption of agreed definitions within the GIAF Taxonomy (15 domains and 82 sub-domains) and Checklists.

methodsWe followed an ontoterminology approach and the Technology Readiness Level adapted to implementation sciences. The iterative and multiple steps involved a scoping review of the terminology and definitions in theories, models and frameworks related to the process domains of implementation research, followed by the development of an inventory of terms, assessment of the definitions for ambiguity and vagueness to develop the Alpha version. The GIAF Glossary was developed concurrently with the development of the GIAF Taxonomy and a Beta version created. Subsequently, an international expert panel (n = 32) critiqued, refined the Beta version and final definitions reached through consensus. Further testing of its usability in the real world occurred over 10 years across 35 project evaluations.

resultsThe final comprehensive GIAF Glossary has n = 189 terms. Of these 72% of the definitions were developed during this study, 12% were adopted verbatim from a published source and 16% adapted from a published source. The completed GIAF Glossary is in Supplement 3.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that numerous existing definitions of terms used in research, evaluation and impact analysis of implementation processes are ambiguous or vague. We demonstrate the combined use of two important methodologies, that of ontoterminology and the Technology Readiness Level-IS. We introduce the GIAF Glossary, developed as part of the GIAF Toolkit which also includes the GIAF Taxonomy, Checklists and Ladders/Scales. The GIAF Glossary provides clear and consensus-based definitions that support consistent communication and understanding across international contexts for impact analysis and implementation research broadly. To our knowledge the GIAF Glossary is the most comprehensive Glossary for the impact analysis of implementation research and science.

Indexed as

Global Impact Analytics FrameworkGlossaryImpact analysisImplementation researchOntoterminologyTaxonomyTerminologyVocabulary

Identifiers

PMID41888980
PMCPMC13188701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.