ArticleBMJ open2026
Role of trust and trustworthiness in implementation science studies: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImplementation science seeks to promote the adoption and sustainment of evidence-based interventions across diverse settings. While technical and organisational determinants of implementation have been extensively studied, relational factors-particularly trust and trustworthiness-remain under-theorised despite being frequently invoked in implementation research. Trust is often embedded implicitly within broader constructs such as stakeholder engagement, partnership quality or acceptability, yet is rarely explicitly defined, systematically measured or positioned clearly within implementation frameworks. No systematic review has comprehensively synthesised how trust functions within implementation science studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines and is registered with PROSPERO. We will conduct a targeted search on Scopus for 14 journals that are recognised by experts as being the most relevant in publishing implementation science literature. Supplemented by hand searching through ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review of published literature does not require ethical approval. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations at implementation science networks and non-technical summaries for community partners and policymakers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2025 CRD420251270920.
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.