ArticleBMJ open2026
Mapping the development of implementation science competency frameworks and capacity-building programmes: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe rapid global expansion of implementation science (IS) capacity-building programmes has been accompanied by the development of IS-specific competency frameworks to guide curriculum design and programme delivery. Although prior reviews have examined the outcomes of these programmes, less attention has been paid to how IS competency frameworks and capacity-building programmes are developed. Further, a recent review noted substantial heterogeneity and inconsistent definition of competencies identified across IS capacity-building programmes. As such, greater clarity is needed regarding the methodological approaches underpinning the design of IS competency frameworks and capacity-building programmes and the degree to which IS competency frameworks, capacity-building programmes and trainees' needs are aligned. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to conduct a scoping review, following the Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Web of Science will be searched for articles published in English from January 2010. Peer-reviewed articles that describe the development methodology of a specific IS competency framework or capacity-building programme will be included. The review will map and synthesise the methodological approaches used to develop IS competency frameworks and capacity-building programmes, with particular attention to (a) the use of participatory methods in development processes and (b) the use of competency frameworks in the development of capacity-building programmes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications and presentations at relevant conferences and workshops. PRE-REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/utyje/.
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.