ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
A tool to evaluate the integration of implementation science methods in a research project: The Dissemination and Implementation Research Capability Self Survey (DIRC-SS).
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) are positioned to enhance the integration of rigorous implementation research methods into projects across their networks, but lack a systematic, standardized process to do so. This study introduces the Dissemination and Implementation Research Capability Self Survey (DIRC-SS), a pragmatic instrument to evaluate and integrate implementation science methods in traditional research activities. Methods: We developed the 15-item DIRC-SS to assess researchers' use of implementation research methods across five key constructs. Its reliability (inter-rater agreement and internal consistency) and sensitivity (change over time) were examined in 10 NIH-funded research projects via ratings assigned by the research teams and by implementation science experts at baseline and one year later. Results: The DIRC-SS total score demonstrated good internal consistency and inter-rater reliability increased over one year. Although the research team ratings did not change significantly over time, the expert ratings significantly increased, and effect sizes across research teams and expert raters were large in this small sample study. Conclusions: The DIRC-SS demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and moderate inter-rater reliability. It effectively distinguished between different levels of implementation research methods integration. Unlike tools focused on grant proposals or final reports, the DIRC-SS can be used at any point in the research process by a research team as a self-survey, by implementation science experts in a consultation process, or across a CTSA program to characterize the implementation science methods employed across projects and highlight targeted areas for researcher education and training.
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.