ArticleImplementation science : IS2026
Making process evaluations more explanatory - key opportunities to advance implementation research.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Process evaluation of implementation strategies is increasingly common, but a review by Bracci et al. showed that room for improvement exists. In this contribution, we complement their recommendations by ideas on the design of process evaluations. Process evaluations are meant to provide explanations for why implementation strategies were effective, or not effective. Therefore, they are best guided by theory or frameworks, but the frequent focus on intervention acceptability reflects a lack of imagination on moderators and mediators that influence outcomes. Intervention fidelity is relevant in all process evaluations. Meaningful synthesis of process evaluation studies requires a homogeneous outcome, such as uptake of practices.
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.