ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2026
Theories, models, and frameworks in implementation science in the context of rehabilitation research: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis review explores the use of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks in rehabilitation research by describing study characteristics and assessing how the applied theories, models, and frameworks align with study purposes.
methodsIn the scoping review, peer-reviewed articles published in English between January 2010 and October 2023 were identified from 5 datbases. Eligible studies applied or were informed by implementation science theories, models, and frameworks in any rehabilitation cotext. Data extraction covered publication characteristics, target populations, setings, study designs, used theories, models, and frameworks, and study purposes. Descriptive statistics and deductive analysis were used to synthesize findings.
resultsOf 2,277 citations, 121 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most of the articles focused on neurological and paediatric rehabilitation, with qualitative and mixed-methods designs predominating. A total of 34 theories, models, and frameworks were identified, mainly determinant frameworks and process models. Theories, models, and frameworks were primarily used to identify barriers and facilitators, evaluate implementation outcomes, and describe implementation processes. However, theories, models, and frameworks selection did not always align with the study purpose.
conclusionThe use of theories, models, and frameworks in rehabilitation research is increasing but remains limited. Their systematic and purposeful application is needed to enhance the usability and transferability of research findings, thereby bridging the research-practice gap, sustaining evidence-based interventions, and informing policy.
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.