Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 142 of the 142 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Making Sense of Implementation Theories, Models, and Frameworks

Open access
Nilsen, Per·2020·Implementation Science 3.0
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-03874-8_3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This chapter presents a taxonomy that distinguishes among different categories of theories, models and frameworks used in implementation science. The chapter describes five categories of theoretical approaches that achieve three overarching aims: process models, which are aimed at describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice; determinant frameworks, classic theories and implementation theories, which are aimed at understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes; and evaluation frameworks, which are aimed at evaluating implementation. Awareness of how the approaches differ is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited “how-to” support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding implementation. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to implementation is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or structure specific determinants associated with implementation success.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-03874-8_3

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 142 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific research 1 (The search for system). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
  2. Davies, P., Walker, A., & Grimshaw, J. (2003). Theories of behavior change in studies of guideline implementation. Proceedings of the British Psychological Society, 11, 120.
  3. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The new institutionalism and organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  4. Dubin, R. (1969). Theory building. New York, NY: Free Press.
  5. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour. New York, NY: John Wiley.
  6. Fletcher, G. J. (1984). Psychology and common sense. American Psychologist, 39(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.39.3.203 · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.39.3.203
  7. Rycroft-Malone, J. (2010). Promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS). In J. Rycroft-Malone & T. Bucknall (Eds.), Models and frameworks for implementing evidence-based practice: Linking evidence to action (pp. 10–136). Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
  8. Rycroft-Malone, J., & Bucknall, T. (2010c). Models and frameworks for implementing evidence-based practice: Linking evidence to action. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
  9. Stetler, C. B. (2010). Stetler model. In J. Rycroft-Malone & T. Bucknall (Eds.), Models and frameworks for implementing evidence-based practice: Linking evidence to action (pp. 51–82). Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
  10. Triandis, H. C. (1979). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behaviour. In M. M. Page, & H. E. Howe (Eds.), (1980). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1979: Beliefs, attitudes and values (pp. 195–259). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Cited by

See all 322

Metadata

Authors
Nilsen, P.
Venue
Implementation Science 3.0
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2020
Pages
53-79
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-03874-8_3
OpenAlex
W4247039181
Cited by
322
References
142
FWCI
215.23
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Making Sense of Implementation Theories, Models, and Frameworks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-3-030-03874-8_3
The paper
Nilsen, P. (2020). Making Sense of Implementation Theories, Models, and Frameworks. Implementation Science 3.0. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03874-8_3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.