ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Implementation research assessment instruments: a webtool to identify, compare and select assessment instruments connected with implementation science theories, models, and frameworks.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) are central to rigorous, theory-informed research and practice; however, linking TMF constructs to appropriate assessment instruments is challenging for many users. Existing repositories have been valuable but are fragmented, vary in accessibility, and are often limited in scope, modality, and TMF linkage. To address this gap, we expanded the Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) Models Webtool. Materials and methods: Using a user-centered, expert-informed, iterative process, we redesigned the webtool's Assess section into a public, construct-linked tool. We first identified and refined a set of instrument metadata (characteristics) through reviews of prior repositories and multistage expert engagement (subject matter experts and an external advisory board). Each candidate metadata field was rated for usefulness and feasibility, culminating in 38 finalized fields. We then purposefully selected and abstracted priority instruments to ensure diversity across modalities (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed), implementation phase, setting, audience, and equity/policy relevance. Abstraction followed a consensus approach with quality checks and regular reconciliation. Usability testing with intended users informed content, navigation, and functionality refinements. Results: Phase 1 includes 51 instruments linked to relevant TMFs and constructs. Instruments span quantitative ( Conclusions: The Assess section of the D&I Models Webtool offers a curated, publicly available, continually updated, construct-linked tool that operationalizes TMFs through concrete measurement options across modalities and contexts. This resource supports more consistent, theory-driven assessment in IS and will continue to expand through iterative updates and community input.
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.