ArticlePloS one2026
Use of implementation science models, theories, and frameworks in pediatric rehabilitation: Protocol for a scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImplementation science frameworks - including process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks - are increasingly used to guide the translation of evidence-based interventions into practice. In paediatric rehabilitation, where interventions are complex and often require multidisciplinary collaboration, these frameworks can support systematic and context-sensitive implementation. However, the extent to which these frameworks have been used has not been comprehensively reviewed.
objectiveDetermine the extent, nature, and specific contexts of the existing literature on the use of implementation science models, theories, and/or frameworks (MTFs) in paediatric rehabilitation.
methodsThis scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodological guidance for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search strategy will be developed with a health sciences librarian and applied across multiple electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, and RehabData. We will search English language articles published since 2006. Studies will be included if they report on the application of implementation science MTFs in the context of paediatric rehabilitation. Screening of titles and abstracts and full texts will be performed independently and in duplicate using Covidence. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion or a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a standardized form. Quantitative data will be summarized using numerical counts. Qualitative data will be analyzed using content analyses.
resultsThis review will report on the use of implementation science MTFs in paediatric rehabilitation, identifying trends on the specific types applied, highlight gaps and/or underutilization across domains or developmental stages, and potentially uncover emerging frameworks. Finally, the results may inform the development of future implementation strategies and capacity-building initiatives within the field.
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.