Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Jun 1;20(6):1568–1577. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00161

Identifying facilitators, barriers, and strategies to implement social determinants of health screening, referral, and follow-up in the US: a scoping review protocol

Kelly Gagnon 1,2,3, Ángel Ortiz-Siberón 2, Nirali Deepak Patel 1, Richard James 4, Mary Hawk 1,3, April Joy Damian 2,5, Rinad Beidas 6,7,8,9,10
PMCID: PMC9385883  NIHMSID: NIHMS1776247  PMID: 35184099

Abstract

Objective:

This review will assess the literature exploring facilitators, barriers, and strategies for the implementation of social determinants of health and social needs screening, referral to community resources, and follow-up in clinical settings and clinical training curricula in the United States.

Introduction:

Social determinants of health and social needs are a central cause of health inequity and poor health outcomes in the United States. Existing research primarily focuses on theoretical implications of social determinants of health on health outcomes, with a growing secondary focus on the development of screening tools that identify patients’ specific unmet social needs. However, summative research has not yet focused on the barriers, facilitators, and strategies relating to the implementation of social determinants of health and social need screenings into routine clinical care. This scoping review aims to examine literature on the implementation of social determinants of health and social needs screening in clinical settings and clinical training curricula while also identifying gaps that require further exploration.

Inclusion criteria:

This review will include relevant studies examining the facilitators, barriers, and strategies for the implementation of social determinants of health and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up as it relates to human subjects. The literature must be in English from 2010 to the present and focus on United States clinical health settings and curricula.

Methods:

We will search PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases for relevant articles. Two independent reviewers will screen abstracts for eligibility. Data will be extracted from eligible articles and results will be presented in narrative and tabular form in alignment with PRISMA-ScR format.

Keywords: facilitators, barriers, strategies, implementation science, scoping review, social determinants of health, social needs

Introduction

In the United States (US), an estimated 900,000 Americans die prematurely from heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease, stroke, and unintentional injury annually.1 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that up to 40% of these deaths are preventable.1 Social factors, in addition to pathophysiological and behavioral cases, are critical underlying drivers of preventable deaths.2 It is estimated that, of the annual preventable deaths, 245,000 are attributable to low education, 133,00 to poverty, 162,000 to low social support, 39,000 to area-level poverty, 119,000 to income inequality, and 176,000 to racial segregation.2 Social factors are often intertwined and intersecting, and their role in health has been identified as the fundamental cause of a variety of health inequities.3

The field of research on social determinants of health (SDOH) and social needs recognizes the combined and individual impact of social factors on health inequities. Social determinants of health are upstream effects at the community level and are defined by the CDC as “conditions in the places where people live, learn, work, and play that affect a wide range of health and quality-of life-risks and outcomes.”4(para.1) There are five established domains within SDOH that encompass the scope of social factors that influence health: economic stability, education access and quality, health care access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context.4 In contrast, social needs are “midstream approaches to mitigate an individual’s adverse conditions and unmet needs”5(para.11) and exist at the individual or family level (eg, food or housing insecurity).5 Social determinants of health and social needs recognize that poor health is not simply a matter of pathophysiological causes and behavioral choices, but rather the impact of an individual’s contextual and social circumstance on their health.

From a theoretical standpoint, the role of SDOH and social needs on health care access and outcomes has been well articulated.6 The current goal of this field of study is to move beyond the theoretical understanding to addressing these factors in practice.7,8 To address the impact of SDOH in clinical care, public health professionals and researchers have proposed that screening for the presence of social needs, providing referrals to relevant resources, and follow-up during clinical care can positively influence patients’ health.8–10 To determine whether previous or ongoing summative research has explored the implementation of screening, referral, and follow-up for SDOH and social needs during clinical care, a preliminary search of databases PubMed (NLM), PsycINFO (APA), PROSPERO, and the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports was conducted. The results of this database search suggest that relevant screening tools have been developed and tested to identify patients’ unmet needs as part of routine clinical care.11 The state of research on SDOH and social needs screening tools has been explored in various systematic and scoping reviews.12,13 These reviews have focused on identifying SDOH and social needs screening tools, the domains covered by these tools, and the contexts and populations of focus in SDOH and social needs screening literature.12,13

While these reviews provide a wealth of information for the adoption and integration of SDOH and social needs screening in clinical care, there is a notable dearth of summative research exploring how best to implement these tools. Specifically, they do not explore influential factors using established determinant frameworks, such as facilitators and barriers, on the systematic uptake of the implementation of the SDOH and social needs screening process (screening, referral, and follow-up) into routine care. Implementation science is the scientific study of approaches to the systematic integration of evidenced-based interventions (EBIs) into practice.14 Given that new EBIs take 17 years to be integrated into practice,15 knowledge of mechanisms that impact this integration is critical to closing the time gap between the creation of effective interventions to improve health and the uptake of these EBIs in clinical systems.14

Although the contents and processes for SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up may differ across health care organizations that deliver patient care,16 a summary of knowledge on barriers, facilitators, and strategies for integration of SDOH and social needs screening into clinical care is critical to understanding how to improve the development and implementation of future SDOH and social needs screening interventions to address patients’ unmet social needs. With a summary of this knowledge, future research can ultimately achieve intended treatment outcomes of SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up utilizing the comprehensive knowledge of known implementation factors. We believe that a scoping review of facilitators, barriers, and strategies to the implementation of SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up in clinical care in the US is warranted, given the call to action to address SDOH and social needs in practice and the wealth of literature on the SDOH and social needs screening tools.7,12

The objective of this scoping review is to understand the state of the literature exploring facilitators, barriers, and strategies for the implementation of SDOH and social needs screening, referral to community resources, and follow-up. Only studies exploring factors on the implementation of SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up taking place in clinical care in the US and its territories, and published in English will be included in this review. Additionally, studies evaluating clinical curricula will also be included To ensure the feasibility of our objective, we investigated whether published studies exist that would meet the inclusion criteria for this study by entering our search terms into the previously mentioned databases. We successfully identified articles that would meet these criteria, which confirmed feasibility.17,18 Our aim is to advance the field of science focused on the implementation of SDOH and social needs processes not only by ascertaining the current state of the literature, but also, more critically, by identifying remaining gaps that should be explored in future research. The goal of this work is to inform implementation strategies for future SDOH and social needs screening interventions and to make recommendations to address any gaps in this field of study.

Review questions

  1. What is the state of the literature regarding facilitators, barriers, and strategies related to the implementation of SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up?
    • What are the common characteristics of this research (ie, populations of focus, types of clinical settings, target population for clinical training curricula)?
    • What aspects of screening, referral, and follow-up in addressing SDOH and social needs have been studied?

  2. What are the facilitators, barriers, and strategies to the implementation of SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up described by the literature?

Inclusion criteria

Participants

To fully understand the facilitators, barriers, and implementation strategies of SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up in the US, there will be no inclusion or exclusion criteria specific to the participants in relevant studies. Additionally, this scoping review will consider studies or relevant literature exploring health systems or clinical training curricula for physicians and other practicing clinical staff in clinical settings. Studies may include, but are not limited to, students in clinical training, members of clinical leadership, health care organization clinical staff, patients, and community members. For this review, health systems are defined as an organization or group of organizations that deliver health care services to patients.

Concept

The primary concept of focus for this review is the process of screening for SDOH and social needs, referring patients to relevant resources, and following-up after referral to assess changes or necessary remediation. The process for addressing SDOH and social needs in clinical care is based in research and recommendations from leading clinical organizations. In 2018, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) released recommendations for addressing SDOH and social needs in primary care.16 In addition to building a health center culture that values health equity, the AAFP provided a three-step framework: i) screening: ask patients about their SDOH and social needs, ii) referral: identify resources in the community to address SDOH and social needs, iii) follow-up: act to connect patients with relevant SDOH and social needs resources.16 This framework is reflective of similar recommendations and programs at the national-level from the CDC, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and the Institute of Medicine’s Committee on the Recommended Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures for Electronic Health Records.19,20 As such, this method of addressing SDOH and social needs in clinical care is accepted by the field and predominates among top national health entities.

The second central concept for this review is specific to the outcomes of interest, which are facilitators, barriers, and strategies for implementation. The intended treatment outcomes of EBIs can only be achieved through effective implementation of the intervention.21 Through research and evaluation of the implementation process, researchers are able to identify factors that influence the success of the intervention in a particular setting. Specifically, implementation science is interested in three main types of factors: i) facilitators, ii) barriers, iii) strategies.22,23 Facilitators are factors that have positive effects, often enhancing implementation of the EBI; while barriers hinder, halt, or deter successful integration of the EBI into a clinical setting.22,23 Lastly, strategies are specific approaches to implementation to improve updates and adherence to the EBI.22,23

Context

This review will only include studies that took place with participants and clinical systems in the United States and the US territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands). While there are no limitations on the types of participants, only studies that focus on clinical contexts will meet the inclusion criteria for this review. Clinical contexts include any place in which a person receives medical care, as an inpatient or outpatient, regardless of specialty. Studies evaluating clinical training curricula will also be included, as providers’ knowledge and attitudes towards SDOH is central to implementation.

To be considered for inclusion, these studies must take place as part of a degree program that results in a clinical credential (ie, nursing, medical, social work). Studies evaluating clinical training curricula will be excluded if they are implemented among high schoolers, undergraduates, or other non-credentialing settings. This review is limited to the US, as health care delivery is heavily dependent on national policies.24 Furthermore, SDOH and social needs are based in social and cultural phenomena, which are best contextualized through a geographic focus.24 By reviewing literature conducted in the US, we hope to discuss specific policy-related social and cultural implications relevant to implementation of SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up.

Types of sources

This scoping review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies. In addition, systematic reviews and opinion papers will be considered for inclusion in the proposed scoping review. To identify the full scope of information available specific to our objective, any published or unpublished work addressing facilitators, barriers, and strategies for the implementation of SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up will be eligible for inclusion.

Methods

The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis25 will be used to guide the development of this scoping review. Study execution for this protocol was assessed using the appropriate criteria from the PRISMA-P checklist.26

Search strategy

The search strategy will aim to locate published and unpublished relevant literature in electronic databases. To ensure the feasibility of our search strategy, a health research librarian (RJ) developed a preliminary PubMed search strategy (see Appendix I). This search strategy was last tested on December 4, 2020. The basic search strategy includes terms and phrases in title and abstract fields as well as formal subject headings regarding social determinants of health, social needs, and related concepts, screening and assessment terms, and terms and topics related to implementation and utilization. The final search strategy will be adapted for each included information source.

The databases to be searched include PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), and Embase (Elsevier). The search will be limited to literature published from 2010 to the present. Given the nature of the outcomes of interest, the search will also include gray literature. Gray literature will be identified by assessing conference abstracts in Embase; hand-searching conference proceedings of significant conferences selected by the authors; and searching ProQuest Dissertations and Theses as well as the Cochrane Library for protocols and clinical trials. Lastly, we will extract and explore the references of relevant review articles to identify any additional literature that should be included in our review. A pilot test of this search strategy will be conducted prior to finalization of this process to ensure its appropriateness for identifying work that meets our inclusion criteria, after which source selection will begin.

Eligibility will be limited to work published or unpublished in English, focused on clinical settings and clinical training curricula in the US, and available since 2010. The primary language of the research team is English, thus only English or English-translated articles will be considered in the review. However, the exclusion of work published in other languages should not impact our review as our focus is on clinical settings and clinical training curricula in the US, where English is the predominant language of both spoken and written work. The year 2010 represents the beginning of published calls for the integration of SDOH and social needs into clinical practice.7

Study selection

After conducting the electronic database search, all records will be collated and uploaded into Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha, Qatar). Any duplicates will be removed prior to literature screening. The first step for study selection will be for two reviewers to pilot the review process by independently testing screening questions and meeting to resolve any discrepancies in understanding of the screening process. After finalization of screening questions and process, the reviewers will then independently assess titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria. For articles that meet the inclusion criteria or where eligibility is unclear based on the title and abstract, the full text will be uploaded into Rayyan and evaluated in detail to determine final inclusion or exclusion. This process will be completed by two independent reviewers. At both stages, discrepancies in the selection process will be resolved by discussion between the two reviewers. When necessary, a third reviewer and/or a senior investigator may be asked to assist with disagreement resolution to ensure no biases influence data extraction. In the final scoping review, we will report on the search and study selection process through the presentation of a flow diagram using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).27

Data extraction

Data will be extracted in alignment with the main objective of this scoping review. A draft extraction tool is provided in Appendix II. This draft will be modified and revised by reviewers as needed during the data extraction process. Any changes or alterations made to the data extraction tool during this process will be reported in the full scoping review. Data extraction will be completed by one reviewer for each article. After preliminary data extraction takes place, a different reviewer will check the data extraction for completeness and accuracy. Any disagreements during data extraction will be discussed by the review team. We will document any changes made to data extraction during this review stage.

Data analysis and presentation

Three categories of literature will be created: i) facilitators, ii) barriers, and iii) implementation strategies. For each of these categories, results pertaining to facilitators and barriers will be extracted in accordance with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).28 The CFIR has five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and process.28 Within these domains are constructs that are associated with effective implementation.28 One aim of CFIR is to operate as a practical guide to the assessment of implementation facilitators and barriers in health care settings.28 For implementation strategies, results will be extracted in accordance with Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC).29 This is a list of discrete implementation strategies established through a modified Delphi process with a group of 71 implementation experts.29 From this process, 73 implementation strategies were compiled, including accessing new funding, building a coalition, changing record systems, and modeling and simulating change.29 Specifically, we will determine where identified facilitators and barriers fall within CFIR domains and constructs and whether any ERIC discrete implementation strategies were applied. Additionally, other key study information, such as specific details about the sample size, participant characteristics, study methodology, study focus and objectives, and measurement of SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and follow-up, will be extracted.

The data extracted for this work will be presented in narrative form, accompanied by tables and figures, where appropriate. Specifically, we plan to report results as they relate to key components of implementation. This stratification of results will maximize readers’ understanding of what exists in the literature and where critical gaps exist for future research, specifically as it relates to policy-related, social, and cultural implications. Additionally, PRISMA-ScR will be used to guide the presentation of the results to ensure systematic and comprehensive reporting.27

Funding

This research was funded in part by National Center For Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (TL1TR001858 to KG). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The NIH was not involved in this article’s study design, analysis or interpretation of data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the article for publication.

Appendix I. Search Strategy

PubMed

Date searched: December 4, 2020

Number Search terms Results retrieved
#1 (“social determinants of health” OR “SDOH” OR “social determinants” OR “social needs” OR “Social risk” OR “health status disparities”) AND (“health surveys” OR “screening tools” OR “screening tool” OR “mass screening” OR “needs assessment” OR “screening instrument” OR “screening instruments” OR “Surveys and Questionnaires”) AND (facilitat*[tiab] OR encourag*[tiab] OR promot*[tiab] OR motivat*[tiab] OR enabl*[tiab] OR Predict*[tiab] OR Support*[tiab] OR barrier*[tiab] OR obstacle*[tiab] OR difficult*[tiab] OR imped*[tiab] OR reluctan*[tiab] OR refus*[tiab] OR Counteract*[tiab] OR Challeng*[tiab] OR Utiliz*[tiab] OR Utilis*[tiab] OR Uptake*[tiab] OR success*[tiab] OR effective*[tiab] OR success*[tiab] OR prioritize*[tiab] OR endorse*[tiab] OR penetration[tiab] OR pragmati*[tiab] OR adopti*[tiab] OR sustainability[tiab] OR fidelity[tiab] OR feasibili*[tiab] OR implementation [tiab] OR patient acceptance of health care[mh] OR attitude to health[mh] OR “Attitude of Health Personnel”[mh] OR “Health Plan Implementation” OR “Implementation Science” OR “Implementation Research” OR “barriers and facilitators”[tiab]) AND (2010:2030[pdat]) 2466
Open in a new tab

Appendix II. Data extraction Instrument<level 1 heading>

Article and study characteristics
Year of publication
Study primary purpose/objective:
Theory or framework:
Study methodology (eg, quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods):
Study design (eg, cohort, cross-sectional):
SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and/or follow-up:
Definition or measurement of SDOH and social needs screening, referral, and/or follow-up:
Location of study:
Type of location (national, urban, rural):
Sampling design (eg, random, convenience):
Data collection methods:
Participants
Study population(s):
Number of participants:
Age of participants:
Role(s) of participants:
Sexual orientation of participants:
Gender of participants:
Race/ethnicity of participants:
Indicators of socio-economic status (ie, education, income)
Measurement/analysis:
Measurement of facilitators, barriers, and strategies:
Analysis used:
Outcomes:
Facilitator outcomes
Please select which CFIR domain(s) pertain to this outcome:
Please select which ERIC strategies were used or identified as part of this outcome:
Barrier outcomes
Please select which CFIR domain(s) pertain to this outcome:
Please select which ERIC strategies were used or identified as part of this outcome:
Strategy outcomes
Please select which CFIR domain(s) pertain to this outcome:
Please select which ERIC strategies were used or identified as part of this outcome:
Relevant conclusions
Open in a new tab

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

RSB receives royalties from Oxford University Press. She has served as a consultant to Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers, provides consultation to United Behavioral Health, and serves on the Clinical and Scientific Advisory Board for Optum Behavioral Health. The others authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.Centers for Disease Control Prevention. Up to 40 percent of annual deaths from each of five leading US causes are preventable [internet]. CDC Newsroom. 2014. [cited 2020 Sep 28]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0501-preventable-deaths.html.
  • 2.Galea S, Tracy M, Hoggatt KJ, Dimaggio C, Karpati A. Estimated deaths attributable to social factors in the United States. Am J Public Health 2011;101(8):1456–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Marmot M, Wilkinson R. Social determinants of health. OUP Oxford, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Social determinents of health [internet]. CDC; 2020. [cited 2020 Sep 28]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/socialdeterminants/index.htm.
  • 5.Green K, Zook M. When talking about social determinants, precision matters. Health Affairs; 2019. [cited 2020 Sep 28]. Available from: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20191025.776011/full/. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Health CoSDo. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health: final report of the commission on social determinants of health. World Health Organization; 2008. [cited 2020 Sep 28]. Available from: https://www.who.int/social_determinants/final_report/csdh_finalreport_2008.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TAJ, Taylor S, Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet 2008;372:1661–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kreuter MW, Thompson T, McQueen A, et al. Addressing social needs in health care settings: evidence, challenges, and opportunities for public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;42:329–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gurewich D, Garg A, Kressin NR. Addressing social determinants of health within healthcare delivery systems: a framework to ground and inform health outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2020:35(5)1571–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Thomas-Henkel C, Schulman M. Screening for social determinants of health in populations with complex needs: implementation considerations. Center for Health Care Strategies; 2017. [cited 2020 Sep 28]. Available from: https://www.chcsorg/media/SDOH-Complex-Care-Screening-Brief-102617.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.LaForge K, Gold R, Cottrell E, Buce AE, Proser M, Hollombe C, Dambrun K, et al. How 6 organizations developed tools and processes for social determinants of health screening in primary care: an overview. J Ambul Care Manage. 2018;41(1):2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.O’Brien KH. Social determinants of health: the how, who, and where screenings are occurring; a systematic review. Social Work Health Care. 2019;58(8):719–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Morone J An integrative review of social determinants of health assessment and screening tools used in pediatrics. J Pediatr Nurs. 2017;37:22–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Balas E, Boren S, Bemmel J, et al. Yearbook of medical informatics 2000: Patient-centered systems. Stuttgart, Germany: Schattauer; 2000, pp. 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Marmot M Addressing social determinants of health in primary care [internet]. American Academy of Family Physicians; 2018. [cited 2020 Nov 11]. Available from: https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/patient_care/everyone_project/team-based-approach.pdf.
  • 17.Page-Reeves J, Kaufman W, Bleecker M, Norris J, McCalmont K, Ianakieva V, et al. Addressing social determinants of health in a clinic setting: the WellRx pilot in Albuquerque, New Mexico. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29:414–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.de la Vega PB, Losi S, Martinez LS, Bovell-Ammon A, Garg A, James T, et al. Implementing an EHR-based screening and referral system to address social determinants of health in primary care. Med Care. 2019;57(Suppl 6; Suppl 2):S133–S139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Committee on the Recommended Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures for Electronic Health Records; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Institute of Medicine. Capturing social and behavioral domains and measures in electronic health records: phase 2. Washington, DC: USA; National Academies Press, 2014. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Alley DE, Asomugha CN, Conway PH, Sanghavi DM. Accountable health communities—addressing social needs through Medicare and Medicaid. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(1):8–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Feyissa GT, Woldie M, Munn Z, Lockwood C. Exploration of facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a guideline to reduce HIV-related stigma and discrimination in the Ethiopian healthcare settings: a descriptive qualitative study. PloS One 2019;14(5):e0216887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Léegaré F, Zhang P. Barriers and facilitators: strategies for identification and measurement. In: Straus SE, Tetroe J, Grahan ID, editors. Knowledge translation in health care. John Wiley & Sons; 2013, pp. 121–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.National Research Council (US), Institute of Medicine (US). US health in international perspective: shorter lives, poorer health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [internet]. JBI, Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 2020. [cited 2021 Feb 08]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.
  • 26.Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES