ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Usability and feasibility of the longitudinal implementation strategy tracking system: a think-aloud study with implementation researchers.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Tracking implementation strategies and their adaptations over time remains a persistent methodological challenge in health services research. The Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS) was developed to support structured, longitudinal documentation of strategies, modifications, and discontinuations aligned with established implementation science frameworks using timeline follow-back procedures and an open-access web-based platform. The study objective was to evaluate the usability, feasibility, and methodological fit of the open-access web-based LISTS platform using a structured think-aloud protocol with implementation researchers. Methods: Nine implementation researchers completed structured think-aloud usability sessions while performing core LISTS tasks, including project setup, strategy entry, bundling, modification logging, discontinuation tracking, and dashboard exploration. Sessions were transcribed and analyzed using hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis. Participants also completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Results: The mean SUS score was 76.94, indicating good perceived usability, and mean NASA-TLX workload was low (1.98 on a 1-7 scale). Qualitative findings revealed consistent endorsement of LISTS' structured longitudinal tracking and theoretical alignment with well-known frameworks. Usability barriers included terminology density, multi-level unit hierarchy confusion, and ambiguity in modification-tracking workflows. A cross-cutting tension emerged between theoretical fidelity and accessibility for non-expert users. Despite conceptual friction, participants completed tasks successfully and rated the system positively overall. Discussion: LISTS demonstrates strong conceptual rigor and functional usability among implementation researchers. However, refinements to terminology scaffolding, hierarchical logic, and modification workflows are needed to enhance accessibility and scalability beyond expert users. Findings highlight broad challenges and considerations for translating implementation science theory and terminology into practical digital infrastructure.
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.