Cited by 1,386Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Bridging Research and Practice

Open access
Tabak, Rachel G., Khoong, Elaine C., Chambers, David A., Brownson, Ross C.·2012·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Context Theories and frameworks (hereafter called models) enhance dissemination and implementation (D&I) research by making the spread of evidence-based interventions more likely. This work organizes and synthesizes these models by (1) developing an inventory of models used in D&I research; (2) synthesizing this information; and (3) providing guidance on how to select a model to inform study design and execution.Evidence acquisition This review began with commonly cited models and model developers and used snowball sampling to collect models developed in any year from journal articles, presentations, and books. All models were analyzed and categorized in 2011 based on three author-defined variables: construct flexibility, focus on dissemination and/or implementation activities (D/I), and the socioecologic framework (SEF) level. Five-point scales were used to rate construct flexibility from broad to operational and D/I activities from dissemination-focused to implementation-focused. All SEF levels (system, community, organization, and individual) applicable to a model were also extracted. Models that addressed policy activities were noted.Evidence synthesis Sixty-one models were included in this review. Each of the five categories in the construct flexibility and D/I scales had at least four models. Models were distributed across all levels of the SEF; the fewest models (n=8) addressed policy activities. To assist researchers in selecting and utilizing a model throughout the research process, the authors present and explain examples of how models have been used.Conclusions These findings may enable researchers to better identify and select models to inform their D&I work.

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 · 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024

Cites

212 of 212 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?

  • Determinant frameworks delineate determinants (i.e., barriers or facilitators) that influence the outcome of implementation efforts.

    “these frameworks delineate determinants (i.e., barriers or facilitators) that influence the outcome of implementation efforts.”

    From The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback (2022) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Context and Evidence Acquisition sections describe frameworks as models with constructs that can guide implementation research. They do not identify a category of “determinant frameworks” or say that those constructs delineate barriers and facilitators influencing implementation outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Theories that guide conceptualization of contextual factors are often encapsulated within determinant frameworks.

    “Theories that guide conceptualization of contextual factors are often encapsulated within determinant frameworks [8, 9]”

    From The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback (2022) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Discussion’s “Model Categorization” section says that theories provide underpinnings for many models, supporting the connection between theory and frameworks. The paper does not specifically say that theories guiding the conceptualization of contextual factors are often encapsulated within determinant frameworks. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The use of established implementation frameworks (Nilsen, 2015; Tabak et al., 2012) can aid in designing effectiveness trials for dissemination and implementation.

    “The use of established implementation frameworks (Nilsen, 2015; Tabak et al., 2012) can aid in designing effectiveness trials for dissemination and implementation.”

    From An introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs (2019) · cites this paper as Tabak et al., 2012

  • Implementation researchers now have a wide range of useful theoretical tools at their disposal.

    “Implementation researchers now have a wide range of useful theoretical tools at their disposal [2–4].”
  • There seems to be no literature review covering the comprehensiveness of the frameworks.

    “There seems to be no literature review covering the comprehensiveness of the frameworks [26].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [51]Ward VL House AO Hamer S Knowledge brokering: exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action BMC Health Serv Res 2009 9 12 19149888 PMC2632997
  2. [62]Nieva VF Murphy R Ridley N From Science to Service: A Framework for the Transfer of Patient Safety 2005 21249844
  3. [121]SIRC Seattle Implementation Research Conference Measures Project: A Comprehensive Review of Dissemination and Implementation Science Instruments www.seattleimplementation.org/sirc-projects/sirc-measures-project/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brownson, R. C.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Tabak, Rachel G.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
337-350
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W25454230
Cited by
1,386
References
212
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 116 · 2022: 116 · 2021: 128 · 2020: 243 · 2019: 127 · 2018: 109 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 89 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • CDC (U48/DP001903)
  • National Cancer Institute (1R01CA124404-01)
  • National Center for Research Resources (TL1RR024995)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH (UL1RR024992)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
dissemination and implementation research, research model, evidence-based interventions, model inventory, health policy
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Policy Making, Research, Research Design, Evidence-Based Practice, Policy

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