ReviewImplementation science communications2026
Updating the critical steps of the quality implementation framework: an umbrella review of reviews.
Review 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Quality Implementation Framework (QIF) is a widely used process model in implementation science (IS). Since its publication in 2012, the field of IS has expanded considerably, yet QIF has never undergone formal revision. Given recent advances and the complexity in implementation research and practice, this study examines whether QIF continues to capture the full scope of implementation quality and its challenges.
methodsAn umbrella review of reviews was conducted on literature published between 2012 and 2025. Eligible articles reported on the development, application, or update of implementation frameworks within healthcare or social science. Data were deductively mapped to the four phases and 14 steps of the original QIF and inductively mapped to identify knowledge not included in the original framework.
resultsA total of 15 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Most aligned with the core structure of QIF, supporting its continued relevance. However, several reviews highlighted the need to add a pre-implementation phase focusing on evidence appraisal, and a post-implementation phase addressing sustainability. Four cross-cutting domains (service user, intervention deliverer, context, and technology) were identified as critical factors throughout the implementation process.
conclusionsAn updated version of QIF is proposed, building on the original framework while introducing two new phases and four cross-cutting domains. This expanded model reflects recent developments in the literature and provides more comprehensive guidance to support implementation across complex real-world settings; it has important implications for implementation research and implementation practice. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023475994.
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.