Table 2.
Key methodological/conceptual articles, reports and resources identified that influenced the content of the ImpRes tool and/or guide
| ImpRes domain | Key methodological/conceptual articles, reports and resources (peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed) providing research design guidance and recommendations |
|---|---|
| Domain 1: Implementation research characteristics | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
| • Brown et al. An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation. Annu Rev. Public Health. 2017;38:1–22 [40]. | |
| • Curran et al. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–26 [22]. | |
| Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
| • National Implementation Research Network. Stages of Implementation. http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation/implementation-stages [41]. | |
| Domain 2: Implementation theories, frameworks and models | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
| • Birken et al. Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):124 [9]. | |
| • Eccles et al. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(2):107–12 [42]. | |
| • Nilsen. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53 [43]. | |
| • Tabak et al. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–50 [44]. | |
| Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
| • Implementation Science Exchange. https://impsci.tracs.unc.edu [17]. | |
| • The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) website. www.cfirguide.org [45]. | |
|
• Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework website. http://re-aim.org [46]. • Normalisation Process Theory. http://www.normalizationprocess.org/. Accessed 12 May 2019. [47]. | |
| Domain 3: Determinants of implementation | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
| • Chaudoir et al. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22 [48]. | |
| • Craig et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655 [49]. | |
| • Damschroder et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50 [26]. | |
| • Flottorp et al. A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci. 2013;23;8:35 [50]. | |
| • Nilsen. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53 [43]. | |
| Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
| • Health Foundation webinar: Quality Improvement and the role of context and how to manage it. www.health.org.uk/webinar-quality-improvement-role-context-and-how-manage-it [51]. | |
| • Health Foundation. Perspectives on Context: A selection of essays considering the role of context in successful quality improvement. https://www.health.org.uk/sites/health/files/PerspectivesOnContext_fullversion.pdf [52]. | |
| • The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) website. www.cfirguide.org [45]. | |
| Domain 4: Implementation strategies | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
| • Powell et al. Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(2):177–194 [53]. | |
| • Proctor et al. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139 [31]. | |
| • Waltz et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships amongst implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:109 [33]. | |
| Domain 5: Service and patient outcomes | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
| • Proctor et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. [34] | |
| Domain 6: Implementation outcomes | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
| • Clinton-McHarg et al. Psychometric properties of implementation measures for public health and community settings and mapping of constructs against the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:148 [54]. | |
| • Lewis et al. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci. 2015;10:155 [55]. | |
| • Proctor et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76 [34]. | |
| Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
| • The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) Implementation Outcomes Repository website. https://societyforimplementationresearchcollaboration.org/ [56]. | |
| • Grid-Enable Measures (GEM) database website. https://www.gem-beta.org/Public/Home.aspx [57]. | |
| • National Institute for Health National Cancer Institute. Advanced Topics for Implementation Science Research: Measure Development and Evaluation webinar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXVhRQXiz4 [58]. | |
| Domain 7: Economic evaluation | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
| • Thompson et al. The cost-effectiveness of quality improvement projects: a conceptual framework, checklist and online tool for considering the costs and consequences of implementation-based quality improvement. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22(1):26–30 [35]. | |
| • Mason et al. When is it cost-effective to change the behavior of health professionals? JAMA. 2001;286(23):2988–92 [59]. | |
| Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
| • Blog: Theory and practice: Finding common ground between health economics and implementation science. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-health/2014/12/18/theory-and-practice-finding-common-ground-between-health-economics-and-implementation-science/[60]. | |
| • Checklist and Online Resource (PCEERT) for Considering the Value of Implementation-Based Quality Improvement [35]. | |
| Domain 8: Stakeholder involvement and engagement | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
| • Rycroft-Malone et al. Collaborative action around implementation in collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care: Towards a programme theory. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 18(3 Suppl):13–26 [38]. | |
| Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
| • Blog: Where are the stakeholders in implementation science? http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/where-are-stakeholders-implementation-science [61]. | |
| Domain 9: Patient and public involvement and engagement | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
| • Burton et al. An Untapped Resource: Patient and Public Involvement in Implementation Comment on “Knowledge Mobilization in Healthcare Organizations: A View from the Resource-Based View of the Firm”. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(12):845–7 [39]. | |
| • Callard et al. Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research. Health Expect. 2012;15(4):389–400 [62]. | |
| • Ocloo J et al. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(8):626–32 [63]. | |
| Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
| • National Institute for Health (NIHR) Report: Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health wellbeing through public involvement in research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/patients-and-public/documents/Going-the-Extra-Mile.pdf [64]. | |
| • National Institute for Health (NIHR) INVOLVE website. http://www.invo.org.uk/ [65]. | |
| • Hayes H et al. National Institute for Health (NIHR) INVOLVE Briefing notes for researchers: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. http://www.invo.org.uk/resource-centre/resource-for-researchers/ [66]. | |
| • National Institute for Health (NIHR) INVOLVE Jargon Buster. http://www.invo.org.uk/resource-centre/jargon-buster/ [67]. | |
| Domain 10: Unintended consequences | Useful references: peer-reviewed publications |
| • Merton R. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. Am Sociol Rev. 1936;1:894e904 [68]. | |
| Useful resources: resources including blogs, webinars and websites | |
| • The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). Online module: Introduction to Unintended Consequences. https://www.healthit.gov/unintended-consequences/content/module-i-introduction-unintended-consequences.html [69]. |