ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Rapid and pragmatic implementation mapping for pre-implementation contextual analysis in multisite implementation trials.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Systematic and data-driven implementation strategy selection is typically a resource-intensive process limited by time and implementation science expertise. Simultaneously, implementation trials often include externally driven timelines. To facilitate the conduct of a multisite hybrid trial, we developed and deployed a tool to facilitate rigorous yet pragmatic implementation mapping for strategy selection. Methods: As part of the HATRICC-US hybrid type II stepped wedge trial, we developed a strategy selection process based on implementation mapping and the Implementation Research Logic Model. The novel process was refined across two sites, tested in two additional sites, and replicated through the remaining sites of the trial. We considered the resources required, duration, alignment with best practices in implementation science, and usefulness to clinical implementation partners. Results: The final rapid implementation mapping process included the following seven steps: Step 1-Data Preparation; Step 2-Determinants and Change Objective Identification; Step 3-Summary Table Development & Internal Member Checking; Step 4-Identification of Implementation Strategies; Step 5-Completion of Implementation Research Logic Model; Step 6-Internal & External Member Checking; and Step 7-Completion of Tailored Implementation Blueprint and Manual. Conclusions: There are often significant resource barriers that prevent the rapid use of implementation mapping and the IRLM and similar tools in implementation settings. We developed rigorous and rapid methods incorporating both implementation mapping and the IRLM for leveraging pre-implementation data collection to inform implementation efforts while also being responsive to both clinical partners and funding deadlines.
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.