Cited by 37Health Policy Implementation ScienceMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Common Elements Approaches to Implementation Research and Practice: Methods and Integration with Intervention Science

Open access
Engell, Thomas, Stadnick, Nicole A., Aarons, Gregory A., Barnett, Miya L.·2023·Global Implementation Research and Applications

Abstract

We propose that common elements approaches can advance implementation research and practice and facilitate pragmatic use of intervention and implementation evidence. Common elements are practices or processes frequently shared by interventions or implementations. Traditional common elements methodologies use synthesis, distillation, and statistics to describe and evaluate the merit of common ingredients in effective interventions. Recent developments include identifying and testing common configurations of elements, processes, and context variables across the literature of effective interventions and implementations. While common elements thinking has grown popular in intervention science, it has rarely been utilized in implementation science, and specifically, combined with the intervention literature. The goals of this conceptual methodology paper are to (1) provide an overview of the common elements concept and how it may advance implementation research and usability for practice, (2) give a step-by-step guide to systematic common elements reviews that synthesizes and distills the intervention and implementation literature together, and (3) offer recommendations for advancing element-level evidence in implementation science. A narrative review of the common elements literature was conducted with attention to applications to implementation research. A six-step guide to using an advanced common elements methodology was provided. Examples of potential results are presented, along with a review of the implications for implementation research and practice. Finally, we reviewed methodological limitations in current common elements approaches, and identified steps towards realizing their potential. Common elements methodologies can (a) synthesize and distill the implementation science literature into practical applications, (b) generate evidence-informed hypotheses about key elements and determinants in implementation and intervention processes and mechanisms, and (c) promote evidence-informed precision tailoring of intervention and implementation to context. To realize this potential, common elements approaches need improved reporting of details from both successful and unsuccessful intervention and implementation research, more data availability, and more testing and investigation of causal processes and mechanisms of change from diverse theories.

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/s43477-023-00077-4

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Significant heterogeneity in the ways in which implementation outcomes are operationalized and reported is a substantial barrier to conducting large-scale meta-analytic approaches to synthesizing evidence for implementation strategies.

    “Further, the significant heterogeneity in the ways in which implementation outcomes are operationalized and reported is a substantial barrier to conducting large-scale meta-analytic approaches to synthesizing evidence for implementation strategies [67].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 92 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bækken, M. (2021). What seems to be working here? Identifying common elements in brief emotion regulation interventions for children and adolescents–a systematic review (Master’s thesis). University of Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-90376
  2. Engell, T. (2021). Co-design and implementation of common elements-based academic support in Norwegian Child Welfare Services. Dissertation. Retrieved from http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-89115
  3. Higgins JP Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2011 John Wiley & Sons
  4. Mellblom, A. V., Helland, S.S., Engell, T., Bergseth, J., Solheim Kvamme, L., Mørk, A. S., Bækken, M., Kjøbli, J. (2023). Common elements in brief interventions on emotion regulation in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Submitted for publication 03.01.2023
  5. Winje, H. N. (2019). Identifisering av felleselementer fra relasjonelle intervensjoner for omsorgssvikt og mishandling (Master’s thesis). Univeristy of Oslo. Retrieved from http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-73472

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Engell, T., Stadnick, N. A., Aarons, G. A., & Barnett, M. L.
Affiliations
  • Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway (NO)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Engell, Thomas
Venue
Global Implementation Research and Applications
Published
2023-03-22
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
1-15
ISSN
2662-9275 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4353041354
Cited by
37
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5
FWCI
13.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Global Implementation Research and Applications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (R03MH117493, P50MH126231, K01MH110608)
  • National Institutes of Health (R34 MH120190, R01MD017222, U01MD018308, P50MH126231)
  • Borchard Foundation
  • Wedel Jarlsberg Fond
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA049891, R01DA038466)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
common elements, implementation research, intervention research, distillation, implementation context

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