Table 3.
Detailed framework selection processes.
| SELECT-IT purpose | TMF selected | TMF not selected | Key attribute rationale | Practical consideration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guiding identification of determinants (barriers/facilitators) | TDF (Theoretical Domains Framework) | CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) | TDF focuses on individual-level behaviour change, aligning with ASHA delivery processes; however, it does not fully capture system-level barriers. Both frameworks are evidence-based. | The study team has qualitative and implementation science expertise and can be using this TDF. |
| Guiding design and adaptation of strategies | ERIC Taxonomy (Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change) | Implementation Mapping | ERIC provides 73 clearly defined, operationalised strategies with standardised labels and action verbs, enabling direct application in ASHA training and CHO supervision. It has strong alignment with behaviour change evidence. Implementation Mapping was considered more resource intensive. | ERIC tools are readily available and usable without extensive training. Strategies can be directly linked to determinants identified during co-design. |
| Guiding evaluation and causal explanation | Proctor et al. (13) taxonomy | RE-AIM framework | Proctor's taxonomy includes eight implementation outcomes (acceptability to sustainability) suitable for early-stage evaluations where effectiveness is not yet established. RE-AIM assumes prior evidence on effectiveness and dissemination readiness. | Proctor measures are well-established and align with existing data collection tools, including ASHA feasibility and evaluation matrices. |
| Guiding the implementation process (study design) | Curran et al. (21) Hybrid Type I | Hybrid Type II or III | Hybrid Type I prioritises effectiveness while concurrently assessing implementation, appropriate for first-time evaluation. Hybrid II/III designs assume greater emphasis on implementation, which is not suitable at this stage. | The design aligns with the Difference-in-Differences analytical approach and is widely recognised as appropriate for early implementation studies. |