ArticleImplementation science : IS2026
Implementation timelines across conditions: a universal Stages of Implementation Completion
Article in Implementation science : IS, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite ongoing efforts, achieving consistent success in implementing evidence-based practices remains challenging due to diverse, context-specific implementation needs. This analysis examined the time required to implement practices currently represented in the Universal Stages of Implementation Completion
methodsImplementation outcomes were compared between research-led and real-world implementation conditions, representing 547 and 818 sites, respectively, across 43 program practices (i.e., interventions) in the Universal SIC repository. Descriptive analyses were conducted using data aggregated at the practice level to contrast implementation conditions. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) from multilevel models (MLM) were calculated to compare outcome variation within and between practices. MLMs examined whether implementation condition was associated with SIC scores (proportion, duration, and Final Stage reached) and key implementation process outcomes (i.e., achieving practice Start-Up and Competency in practice delivery).
resultsIn aggregated descriptive analyses, research-led sites demonstrated slightly higher rates of practice Start-Up (48% vs. 42%) and Competency (41% vs. 36%), and faster pace in Phase 2 (mean difference = 322 days) than real-world sites. ICCs from unconditional multilevel models ranged from 0.31 to 0.62 across outcomes, confirming substantial variance attributable to between-practice differences. MLMs found few significant differences in outcomes between conditions. MLMs confirmed that research-led sites showed significantly shorter durations during Phase 2 (461 vs. 740 days, p = 0.02), and they additionally showed lower activity completion proportions in research sites (61% vs. 83%, p = 0.02) compared to real-world sites. MLMs found no significant differences between research-led and real-world sites in achieving program Start-Up or Competency in practice delivery.
conclusionsWhile real-world sites had longer Phase 2 durations than research sites, there were no differences in achieving Start-Up or Competency between the two implementation conditions. Low success rates (less than 50% of sites achieving practice Start-Up and Competency in both conditions) highlight shared implementation challenges across contexts and support unified SIC benchmarks to inform future implementations.
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.