The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 31 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use
Open accessAbstract
Objectives To conduct a scoping review of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks that have been used to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions targeted to prevention and/or management of cancer or other chronic diseases.Study design and setting We used a comprehensive multistage search process from 2000 to 2016, which included traditional bibliographic database searching, searching using names of theories, models and frameworks, and cited reference searching. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and abstracted the data.Results We found 596 studies reporting on the use of 159 KT theories, models, or frameworks. A majority (87%) of the identified theories, models, or frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, with 60% used once. The theories, models, and frameworks were most commonly used to inform planning/design, implementation and evaluation activities, and least commonly used to inform dissemination and sustainability/scalability activities. Twenty-six were used across the full implementation spectrum (from planning/design to sustainability/scalability) either within or across studies. All were used for at least individual-level behavior change, whereas 48% were used for organization-level, 33% for community-level, and 17% for system-level change.Conclusion We found a significant number of KT theories, models, and frameworks with a limited evidence base describing their use.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This scoping review identified 596 studies reporting on the use of 159 knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, or frameworks to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions for cancer or other chronic diseases. Most identified KT theories, models, and frameworks had limited use, with 87% used in five or fewer studies and 60% used once.
Key findings
- The review included 596 studies plus 47 companion reports, reporting on 159 KT theories, models, or frameworks used to guide 627 KT interventions to disseminate or implement 927 clinical interventions.
- 139 (87%) of the theories, models, or frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, and 95 (60%) were used once; the three most frequently used were Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (168 studies), Prochaska and DiClemente’s Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (141 studies), and Rosenstock’s Health Belief Model (67 studies).
- The theories, models, or frameworks were most commonly used to inform planning/design (81%), implementation (67%), and evaluation (55%) activities, and least commonly used to inform dissemination (32%) and sustainability/scalability (23%) activities; 26 were used across the full implementation spectrum.
- All 159 were used for at least individual-level behavior change, while 48% were used for organization-level, 33% for community-level, and 17% for system-level change; 11% addressed all four levels of behavior change.
Methods
- Scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual, reported using PRISMA; an integrated KT approach engaged knowledge users at all phases.
- Comprehensive multistage search from 2000–2016 included bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO), named theory/model/framework searching, cited reference searching, grey literature, and reference-list screening; the BeHEMoTh framework informed the search, and 305 names of KT theories, models, or frameworks were compiled.
- Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, with calibration exercises and discrepancies resolved by consensus or a third reviewer; data were abstracted on study, theory/model/framework, and KT intervention characteristics, and synthesis included subgroup analyses by context, stage of care, and level of behavior change.
Limitations
- The paper states potential misclassification of theories, models, and frameworks because study authors used terms inconsistently; it also states English-language restriction, exclusion of book chapters, focus on cancer and other chronic diseases, no assessment of the limitations or validity evidence of the theories/models/frameworks, no quality appraisal of included studies, and no contact with authors for missing information.
- The paper states that using the Knowledge-to-Action stages in a linear approach may not capture the iterative nature of KT work, and that the operational definition of theory/model/framework could have affected the number identified and included.
- Evident from the text: the search ended in 2016, so theories, models, or frameworks published after that period would not be captured; the paper also cautions against using frequency of use as an indicator of quality.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
40 Own result · 23 Not checked yet · 13 Own method · 7 Own interpretation · 1 Partly supported · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It also seems clear that while the KT field is changing rapidly, as evidenced by the ever-increasing number of theories, models and frameworks being published in recent years, there is little evidence that any consolidation of a few theories, models or frameworks is taking place [35].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 20
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [35] Brehaut, 2012, Building theories of knowledge translation interventions: use the entire menu of constructs, Implement Sci sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Limitations section says KT theory development is distant from a grand unifying theory, which supports the claim's general direction. But the section on the Theoretical Domains Framework describes a consensus process that distilled constructs from 33 theories into 12 domains. The paper does not establish that little consolidation of theories, models, or frameworks is taking place across the field. (LLM, conf=0.83)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The included studies reported using KT theories, models or frameworks to guide 627 KT interventions to disseminate or implement 927 clinical interventions.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the three most frequently used theories, models or frameworks were Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (168 studies), Prochaska and DiClemente's Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (141 studies) and Rosenstock's Health Belief Model (67 studies).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.3 KT theory, model and framework characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All 159 theories, models and frameworks were used for at least individual-level change”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.5 Level of behavior change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most frequently, the 159 identified theories, models and frameworks were used to inform planning/design (81%), implementation (67%) and evaluation (55%) activities.”
- Also stated in: § M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D · plain
“The 159 identified theories, models and frameworks were most commonly used to inform planning/design, implementation, and evaluation activities, and least commonly used to inform dissemination and sustainability and/or scalability activities.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
- Also stated in: § M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority (91%) of theories, models and frameworks were reported to be used prospectively.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.3 KT theory, model and framework characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twenty-six theories, models or frameworks were used across all four KT stages of planning/design, implementation, evaluation, and sustainability/scalability; we call these 'fullspectrum theories, models or frameworks'.”
- Also stated in: § M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D · plain
“Twenty-six were used across the full KT spectrum, from planning/design to sustainability/scalability.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The stages of the Knowledge-to-Action cycle can be used in a linear approach to frame the review, even though the cycle is intended to be used iteratively.
- Also stated in: § M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, 10 full-spectrum theories, models and frameworks addressed all four levels of behavior change across the included studies (Table 2).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.5 Level of behavior change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified 159 different KT theories, models and frameworks.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“We found 596 studies reporting on the use of 159 KT theories, models or frameworks.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.3 KT theory, model and framework characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
- Rests on an assumption: The search strategy achieved literature saturation for knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The theories, models and frameworks were less frequently used to inform dissemination (32%) and sustainability and/or scalability activities (23%).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 27
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 33
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“of these, one theory, model or framework (Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Collaborative Model for Achieving Breakthrough Improvement) covered more than one stage of care, and none covered the full chronic disease control continuum.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, we included 596 studies and 47 companion reports in our scoping review (Figure 1).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.1 Literature search
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The context included cancer in 350 studies (59 %) or other chronic diseases in 295 studies (49%); 49 studies (8%) examined patients with cancer and other types of chronic diseases.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“of these, 18 theories, models or frameworks covered more than one stage of care, of which two covered the full cancer control continuum (Action Research, and Rogers's Diffusion of Innovations Theory).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The five most common cancer types (including prevention and risk factors) were breast (21%), general/all (cancer) types (13%), colorectal (8%), cervical (7%), and lung (6%).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fifteen of the 26 full-spectrum theories, models and frameworks were also used for dissemination, thus covering the full KT continuum.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 26 full-spectrum theories, models and frameworks, 18 were used prospectively, two were used retrospectively, and six were used both prospectively and retrospectively in different studies.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 26 full-spectrum theories, models and frameworks (used across the planning/design, implementation, evaluation, and sustainability/scalability stages), 24 were used for organization-level change, 19 for communitylevel change, and 11 for system-level change.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.5 Level of behavior change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies were published from 2000 to 2016, with 69% of studies published in the last 10 years (2007 to 2016), 37% published in the last 5 years (2012 to 2016), and 20% published in the last 3 years (2014 to 2016).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while 48% were used for organization-level, 33% for community-level, and 17% for system-level change.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.5 Level of behavior change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 596 included studies were most commonly conducted in North America (74%; Table 1).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, 139 (87%) of the theories, models and frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, with 95 (60%) used once.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“A majority (87%) of the identified theories, models or frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, with 60% used once.”
- Also stated in: § M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D · plain
“In contrast, 139 (87%) theories, models and frameworks were used in less than 1% of the included studies (i.e., five or fewer studies), with 95 (60%) used once.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.3 KT theory, model and framework characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
- Rests on an assumption: The search strategy achieved literature saturation for knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The five most common chronic diseases (including prevention and risk factors) were cardiovascular (11%), diabetes (9%), general/all (chronic disease) types (9%), obesity/overweight (8%), and other/unspecified (8%; Table 1).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 596 includes, 122 articles were from our grey literature search and all articles were published.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.1 Literature search
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of the interventions targeted patients/general public (85%), while 31% targeted healthcare professionals, and 23% targeted organizations.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common intervention settings were community only (35%), outpatient clinic only (23%), and multiple settings (i.e., at least two of: community, outpatient clinic, hospital, home, government, and long-term care; 21%).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The funding source was public in 74%, private or a mix of public and private in 7%, no funding in 3%, and not reported in 17% of studies.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified 1664 citations from our first search; 1989 citations from our named search; 235 citations from our cited reference search; 977 citations from our grey literature search of 24 websites; and 319 citations from checking the reference lists of 31 systematic reviews.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.1 Literature search
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 13 removing duplicates, we screened 4598 citations at the title and abstract level and 1899 articles at the full-text level.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.1 Literature search
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A majority of the theories, models and frameworks were used in less than 1% (i.e., five or fewer) of the included studies, with many used once.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite this, we identified almost 600 studies, making it the largest review of KT theories, models and frameworks to our knowledge.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 20
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: No larger review of KT theories, models and frameworks exists.
In the paper
“Outcomes were abstracted and then coded using the Cochrane taxonomy of relevant outcomes [30].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Cochrane Consumers and Communication
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether or not the study authors correctly selected and applied the theory, model or framework was beyond the scope of this review and highlights something that could be explored in a future project.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 20
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet studies have shown that researchers fail to use them or may not use them appropriately [3,4].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Davidoff, 2015, Demystifying theory and its use in improvement, BMJ Qual Saf source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Davies, 2010, A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations, Implement Sci source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior to screening, all reviewers completed two separate calibration exercises at each level to ensure reliability.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.4 Study selection process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Nilsen's taxonomy describes KT models as useful for guiding the steps or process of implementation.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Nilsen, 2015, Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks, Implement Sci source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our protocol was developed using the scoping review methods by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) [18] and outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual [19].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.1 Protocol
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Arksey, 2005, Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework, Int J Soc Res Methodol source
- Not checked yetcites [19] Peters
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Consistent terminology is important because theories, models and frameworks serve different purposes (e.g., Nilsen's taxonomy) [5].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 20
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Nilsen, 2015, Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks, Implement Sci source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior to data abstraction, all reviewers completed two calibration exercises on a total of 10 articles to ensure team agreement through consensus.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by consensus, or by a third reviewer (LS, SES).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.4 Study selection process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the scope of our review was quite broad and the findings are applicable to a wide range of health areas including public health.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 20
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, KT frameworks are described as useful for understanding or explaining influences on implementation outcomes or for evaluating implementation efforts [5].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Nilsen, 2015, Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks, Implement Sci source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To develop a more systematic approach to searching this subject area, we employed a new, iterative approach called the BeHEMoTh (Behavior of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) framework [24] to inform our search protocol and to build a list of names of KT theories, models and frameworks.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.3 Information sources and search strategy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Booth, 2015, Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?, Health Info Libr J source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts (level 1) and full-text articles (level 2) using online systematic review software Synthesi.sr[27].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.4 Study selection process
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Knowledge Translation Program
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While a similar tool does exist for KT researchers [34], the tool is not based on a comprehensive systematic or scoping review approach.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 20
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] The Center for Research in Implementation Science and Prevention
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Fourth, we did not assess the limitations to the different theories, models and frameworks, such as whether or not it is appropriate for a certain context or is lacking validity evidence [3].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 20
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Davidoff, 2015, Demystifying theory and its use in improvement, BMJ Qual Saf source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The P (patient, problem or population) I (intervention) C (comparison, control or comparator) O (outcome) and eligibility criteria were specified a priori with input from our knowledge users (LZ, JK) at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (a federally-funded organization that is the steward of the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.1 Protocol
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A recent citation network analysis of 63 KT theories, models and frameworks found that while some were highly cited, most were rarely cited M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6 in the literature from 1985 to 2012 [17].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Skolarus, 2017, Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks, Implement Sci source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, to ensure literature saturation, we searched for additional articles by screening the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews identified during the first three stages of screening.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.3 Information sources and search strategy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the large number of KT theories, models and frameworks available, our summary tables can be searched for theories, models or frameworks depending on the details of the dissemination or implementation project.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assessment of the quality of various theories, models and frameworks was out of scope and would require separate search strategies of each of the included theories, models and frameworks to identify evidence of their validity.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > A C C E P T E D
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To optimize feasibility, we did not contact study authors for clarity on the theories, models or frameworks used, or to obtain information missing from the included study.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We chose to follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement [23] for reporting our results, since a reporting tool for scoping reviews does not yet exist.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.1 Protocol
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, Ann Intern Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, Nilsen's 2015 taxonomy [5] describes KT theories as useful for understanding or explaining aspects of implementation (i.e., the mechanism of change).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Nilsen, 2015, Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks, Implement Sci source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The MEDLINE version of the search strategy was peer reviewed independently by an information specialist (EC) using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) criteria [25] and modified, as needed.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] McGowan, 2016, PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement, J Clin Epidemiol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on input from our knowledge users at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, subgroup analyses were performed to explore the context (cancer, chronic disease, both), stage of care (prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, survivorship, palliative care), and level of behavior change (individual, organization, community, system).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.7 Synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Out of 146 identified studies, the authors found that 101 studies either cited the model without explanation or used it to guide the project in a 'general, non-specified way', while only 10 studies used the model to inform 'the design, delivery, and evaluation of implementation activities' [32].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Field, 2014, Using the Knowledge to Action Framework in practice: a citation analysis and systematic review, Implement Sci source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The use of an operational definition of a theory, a model and a framework could have affected the number identified and included in our review.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 20
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inter-rater agreement was calculated using percent agreement (>75%) across all reviewers.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.4 Study selection process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For instance, Prochaska and DiClemente's Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change is an example of a widely-used theory, model or framework that lacks supporting evidence of effectiveness from systematic reviews [37].”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 20
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] West, 2005, Time for a change: putting the transtheoretical (stages of change) model to rest, Addiction source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We achieved acceptable agreement after two random samples of 50 articles at level 1, and two sets of 20 articles at level 2.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 2.4 Study selection process
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
“To optimize feasibility, we did not contact study authors for clarity on the theories, models or frameworks used, or to obtain information missing from the included study.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The search strategy achieved literature saturation for knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks.
“Finally, to ensure literature saturation, we searched for additional articles by screening the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews identified during the first three stages of screening.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The included studies' reports of using a knowledge translation theory, model or framework to guide dissemination or implementation are sufficient to characterize its use.
“Articles were excluded if they mentioned a KT theory, model or framework (e.g., in the introduction or discussion sections) without reporting on using it to guide dissemination or implementation of a KT intervention.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The stages of the Knowledge-to-Action cycle can be used in a linear approach to frame the review, even though the cycle is intended to be used iteratively.
“While we used the stages of the Knowledge-to-Action cycle in a linear approach to frame this review, this is not how the cycle was intended to be used.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 159 identified knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks are distinct entities and not overlapping or synonymous.
“We identified 159 different KT theories, models and frameworks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
End users have difficulty identifying an appropriate KT theory, model or framework to inform their work.
“A decision support tool to help end users identify an appropriate KT theory, model or framework to inform their work would therefore be highly beneficial.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
No larger review of KT theories, models and frameworks exists.
“making it the largest review of KT theories, models and frameworks to our knowledge.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
No prior comprehensive review of KT theories, models and frameworks used to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions targeted to prevention and/or management of cancer or other chronic diseases exists.
“To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review of KT theories, models and frameworks that have been used to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions targeted to prevention and/or management of cancer or other types of chronic diseases.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Despite the substantial number of TMFs, there is limited evidence to describe their use [92].”
From The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [92]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The need for better reporting on how TMFs are used in implementation research is a gap in the literature that has already been discussed [92].”
From The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [92]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, a review identified 159 different implementation TMFs, of which 87% of them were used in five or fewer studies [92].”
From The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [92]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, a review identified 159 different implementation TMFs, of which 87% of them were used in five or fewer studies [92].”
From The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [92]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
“The most common intervention settings were community only (35%), outpatient clinic only (23%), and multiple settings (i.e., at least two of: community, outpatient clinic, hospital, home, government, and long-term care; 21%).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > Additional information
“Intervention setting* Community 228 36 Clinic (outpatients) 149 24 Multiple settings 141 22”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
“The 596 included studies were most commonly conducted in North America (74%; Table 1).”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > Additional information
“Geographic region North America 438 73”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > 3.2 Study characteristics
“The majority of the interventions targeted patients/general public (85%), while 31% targeted healthcare professionals, and 23% targeted organizations.”
§ Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge > Additional information
“Intervention target* Patients/general public 528 84 Healthcare professionals 206 33 Organization 142 23”
Citations
Cites
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496
Social Foundations of Thought and Action
Bandura, A. (2002) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446221129.n6 · Cited by 9,948
Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322 · Cited by 7,217 · cited 1×
“[13] are examples that meet this definition.”
PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 · Cited by 5,700 · cited 1×
“) using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies criteria [25] and modified, as needed.”
MethodSelf-citationLost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?
Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, N. (2006) · Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · doi:10.1002/chp.47 · Cited by 4,705
Self-citationMaking sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks
Nilsen, P. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0 · Cited by 4,447
Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach
Michie, S. (2005) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 · Cited by 3,440
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 210
Development of the Guide to Disseminating Research (GuiDiR): A consolidated framework
Scott, S., Atkins, B., D'Costa, T., Rendle, C., Murphy, K., Taylor, D., Smith, C. A., Kellar, I., Briggs, A. M., Griffiths, A. W., et al. (2024) · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.08.001 · Cited by 8
Leadership Competencies for Knowledge Translation in Public Health: A consensus study
Rodríguez‐Feria, P., Hernandéz, L. J., & Czabanowska, K. (2021) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdab286 · Cited by 6
Younas, A. (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103650 · Cited by 7
Lai, J., Pilla, B., Stephenson, M., Brettle, A., Zhou, C., Li, W., Li, C., Fu, J., Deng, S., Zhang, Y., et al. (2024) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-024-01997-8 · Cited by 6
Chicoine, G., & Straus, S. E. (2025) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000496 · Cited by 7
Self-citationToomey, E. C., To, D., Nathan, N., Byrne, M., Lorencatto, F., Matvienko‐Sikar, K., McCleary, N., & Colquhoun, H. L. (2025) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2025.2534001 · Cited by 8
Weight, C., Laritz, R., Collins, S. E., Mooney, M., Vinette, B., Castiglione, S. A., Straiton, N., Chicoine, G., Liang, S., Presseau, J., et al. (2025) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/tbm/ibaf043 · Cited by 8
Esmail, R., Clement, F. M., Holroyd-Leduc, J. M., Niven, D. J., & Hanson, H. M. (2021) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06382-8 · Cited by 6
Younas, A. (2024) · Global Implementation Research and Applications · doi:10.1007/s43477-024-00131-9 · Cited by 6
Implementing health system improvement: resources and strategies for interprofessional teams
Eljiz, K., Greenfield, D., Hogden, A., et al. (2023) · BMJ Open Quality · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2022-001896 · Cited by 6
Mapping the Evidence on Rapid Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections: A Scoping Review
Rubinstein, M. L., Wolk, D. M., Babady, N. E., Johnson, J. K., Atkinson, B., Makim, R., & Parrott, J. S. (2021) · The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1093/jalm/jfab041 · Cited by 6
Wood, B., Bohonis, H., Ross, B. M., & Cameron, E. (2022) · Canadian Medical Education Journal · doi:10.36834/cmej.73051 · Cited by 6
Shin, H. D., Hamovitch, E., Gatov, E., MacKinnon, M., Samawi, L., Boateng, R., Thorpe, K., & Barwick, M. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.11.22.23298897 · Cited by 40
Reszel, J., Daub, O., Leese, J., Augustsson, H., Bellows, D. M., Cassidy, C. E., Crowner, B. E., Dunn, S., Goodwin, L. B., Hoens, A. M., et al. (2023) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-023-00525-0 · Cited by 8
Self-citationAdoption Processes of Innovations in Health Systems: The Example of Telemedicine in Germany
Rauner, Y., & Stummer, H. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare12020129 · Cited by 6
3D Printing for Accessible Education: A Case Study in Assistive Technology Adoption
Holloway, L. M., Butler, M., Waddell, A., & Marriott, K. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713689 · Cited by 8
Full Comprehension of Theories, Models, and Frameworks Improves Application: A Focus on RE-AIM
Smith, M. L., & Harden, S. M. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.599975 · Cited by 5
Golden, R. E., Sanders, A. M., & Frayne, S. M. (2023) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2023.1205521 · Cited by 5
Implementation Science Across Lifestyle Medicine Interventions
Adsul, P., Perez, L. G., Oh, A., & Chambers, D. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-48088-2_4 · Cited by 6
Esmail, R., Hanson, H. M., Holroyd-Leduc, J. M., Niven, D. J., & Clement, F. M. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042251 · Cited by 5
Jesus, T. S., Kamalakannan, S., Bhattacharjya, S., Bettger, J. P., Jacobs, K., & Hoenig, H. (2023) · Work · doi:10.3233/wor-210745 · Cited by 6
Achieving greater clinician engagement and impact in health care improvement: a neglected imperative
Scott, I. A., Kallie, J., & Gavrilidis, A. (2019) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja2.50438 · Cited by 6
Lukersmith, S., Woods, C., Sarma, H., de Miquel, C., & Salvador‐Carulla, L. (2025) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2024.12.056 · Cited by 5
Molle, J., Agnel, J., Colson, S., & Chays‐Amania, A. (2025) · International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2025.100414 · Cited by 9
Tabak, R. G., Nilsén, P., Woodward, E. N., & Chambers, D. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197660690.003.0004 · Cited by 4
Østergaard, B., Eggenberger, S. K., Sheppard-LeMoine, D., Mulcaster, A., & Imhof, R. M. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.16848 · Cited by 6
McConnell, T., Blair, C., Reid, J., & Wong, G. (2025) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12779-6 · Cited by 6
Quigley, M., Zoungas, S., Zimbudzi, E., Wischer, N., Andrikopoulos, S., & Green, S. (2022) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-022-07652-9 · Cited by 4
Determinants of Implementation
Wensing, M., & Grol, R. P. T. M. (2020) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119488620.ch8 · Cited by 5
Measurement Issues in Dissemination and Implementation Research
Lewis, C. C., Mettert, K. D., Proctor, E. K., & Brownson, R. C. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197660690.003.0015 · Cited by 4
Zhao, J., Chen, W., Bai, W., Zhang, X., Hui, R., Chen, S., Fontaine, G., Wei, X., Zhang, N., & Graham, I. D. (2025) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-025-02786-3 · Cited by 7
Reyneke, R. A., Richens, I. F., Buchanan, H., Davies, E. B., Sorrell, C., Ashmore, A., & Brennan, M. L. (2023) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.105928 · Cited by 4
Missing the Target—Mis-implementation and De-implementation
McKay, V., Walsh‐Bailey, C., Malone, S. M., McGovern, C., & Niven, D. J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197660690.003.0012 · Cited by 4
Pulling the investment levers on implementation research in oncology
Basu, P. S., Carvalho, A. L., Almonte, M., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00025-0 · Cited by 4
Malakellis, M., Shee, A. W., Alston, L. V., Versace, V. L., Griffith, P., Odgers, J., & Namara, K. M. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/64734 · Cited by 3
Psychosocial Interventions for Pain Management in Breast Cancer Survivors: A RE-AIM Evaluation
Cox-Martin, E., Phimphasone‐Brady, P., Hoffecker, L., & Glasgow, R. E. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings · doi:10.1007/s10880-022-09874-9 · Cited by 4
Use of the Self- and Family Management Framework in quantitative studies
Park, J. H., Rada, L., Feder, S. L., Montano, A.-R. L., Batten, J., Tan, H., Grey, M. J., & Schulman‐Green, D. (2022) · Nursing Outlook · doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2022.10.003 · Cited by 3
Ghahfarokhi, R. J., Alavi, M., & Soleymani, M. R. (2021) · Journal of Education and Health Promotion · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_821_20 · Cited by 3
Usability Testing of a Web Tool for Dissemination and Implementation Science Models
Gomes, R. N., Ford, B. S., Tabak, R. G., Brownson, R. C., Malone, S. M., Padek, M. M., Glasgow, R. E., & Rabin, B. A. (2024) · Global Implementation Research and Applications · doi:10.1007/s43477-024-00125-7 · Cited by 4
Applying Translational Science Approaches to Protect Workers Exposed to Nanomaterials
Schulte, P. A., Guerin, R. J., Cunningham, T. R., Hodson, L., Murashov, V. V., & Rabin, B. A. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.816578 · Cited by 2
Weppelman, I., & Patuano, A. (2024) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470241277199 · Cited by 2
Ziam, S., Lanoue, S., Sween-Cadieux, E. M., et al. (2023) · European Conference on Knowledge Management · doi:10.34190/eckm.24.2.1642 · Cited by 2
Translating Fall Prevention Research into Practice
Sibley, K. M., Korall, A. M. B., & Touchette, A. J. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108594455.030 · Cited by 2
Park, S., Bakko, M., & Pinto, R. M. (2025) · Human Services Organizations Management Leadership & Governance · doi:10.1080/23303131.2025.2471533 · Cited by 3
Tieman, J., & Lewis, V. J. (2021) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare9050600 · Cited by 2
Agwu, P., Mbachu, C. O., & Onwujekwe, O. E. (2025) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-024-01267-8 · Cited by 2
Strifler, L., Barnsley, J. M., Hillmer, M. P., et al. (2020) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.2.17214/v2 · Cited by 2
Self-citationFive Common Myths Limiting Engagement in HIV-Related Implementation Research
Beres, L. K., Schwartz, S., Mody, A., Geng, E., & Baral, S. (2022) · JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · doi:10.1097/qai.0000000000002964 · Cited by 3
Response to letter to the editor
Esmail, R., Hanson, H. M., Holroyd-Leduc, J. M., et al. (2020) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-020-01010-1 · Cited by 2
Shrestha, A., Yang, L., Demissie, G. D., Dhital, R., Jeemon, P., Ganeshkumar, P., Gupta, S., Karmacharya, B. M., Thankappan, K. R., Oldenburg, B. F., et al. (2025) · BMJ Public Health · doi:10.1136/bmjph-2024-001371 · Cited by 2
Strifler, L., Barnsley, J. M., Hillmer, M. P., et al. (2020) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.2.17214/v3 · Cited by 1
Self-citationvan Eijk, N. L., Schweren, L., Veerbeek, M., Creemers, D. H. M., van Ballegooijen, W., de Winter, R. F. P., Luijs, N., Janssen, K., Lucassen, I. G. M., Schoorl, M., et al. (2025) · Global Implementation Research and Applications · doi:10.1007/s43477-025-00202-5 · Cited by 2
Implementierung evidenzbasierter Praxis: viele Theorien, limitiertes Wissen
Balzer, K. (2019) · Pflege · doi:10.1024/1012-5302/a000684 · Cited by 1
Implementierungsforschung im Gesundheitswesen
Wensing, M. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-42863-1_24 · Cited by 1
Ke, S. D. K. J. X. B. (2023) · Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences · doi:10.2478/amns.2023.2.00050 · Cited by 1
Critical care research in low- and middle-income countries: a narrative review
Salluh, J. I., Amado, F., Pisani, L., Quintairos, A., Nassar, A. P., Besen, B. A. M. P., Sendagire, C., de Souza, D. C., Bozza, F. A., Burghi, G., et al. (2025) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thorax-2024-221988 · Cited by 1
de Moel‐Mandel, C., Lynch, C., Issaka, A., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3439266/v1 · Cited by 1
Yan, C., Hu, J., Kang, J., Xing, X., Tu, S., & Zhou, F. (2024) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02713-y · Cited by 3
Martin, L. J., Erickson, K. T., Coletti, J. T., Saizew, K., McGuire, C. S., Maw, A., Primeau, C., Wolff, M., Ladd, B., & Côté, J. (2024) · Journal of Character Education · doi:10.1108/jced-04-2024-0010 · Cited by 1
Implementation science in hybrid randomized controlled trials: a state-of-the-art systematic review
Liu, M., Comber, E. R., Martin, A. J., Roberts, N. A., Trott, M., Costa, N., Foster, N. E., & Hickman, I. J. (2026) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000568 · Cited by 4
Moss, S. J., Chacon, C. Z., Hekmati, F. B., Siddiqui, S. A., Stelfox, M., Ahmed, S. B., Birnie, K. A., Halperin, B. A., Halperin, S. A., Tutelman, P. R., et al. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083285
Individual Competence and Evidence-Based Practice (with Inclusion of the International Standards)
Salmond, S. W. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51399-3_3
Lock, A., & Sergeenko, G. (2024) · Advanced Journal of Social Science · doi:10.21467/ajss.13.1.40-58
Groenewald, C. B., Beals‐Erickson, S. E., Ralston-Wilson, J., Rabbitts, J. A., & Palermo, T. M. (2016) · Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2016.01.465
Impact of Non-Human Actors in Communicating Meaning: Towards a Knowledge Translation Framework
García-Pérez, A., & Bedford, D. (2023) · European Conference on Knowledge Management · doi:10.34190/eckm.24.1.1380
Korall, A. M. B., Chong, H., Komisar, V., Mackey, D. C., Khan, M., Hoekstra, F., Brown, S. G., Gardner, P., Hames, C., Laing, A. C., et al. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310117
Evidence to Practice: Implementing Evidence-Based Prevention Programs
Fuhr, D. C., & Wensing, M. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6625-3_93-1
Identifying use of knowledge translation theory in applied ergonomic research
Aziziderouei, M. (2020)
An evidence-based approach to disseminating research
Bhattacharya, D., Scott, S., & Atkins, B. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-44607-8.00006-6
Dryden, D., Campbell, G. M., & Murphy, D. (2026) · European Journal of Psychotraumatology · doi:10.1080/20008066.2026.2694184
Tobin, R., Crawford, G., Leavy, J. E., Hallett, J., & Lobo, R. C. (2026) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems14091064
Translating Women’s Health Research into Policy and Practice
Brown, H. L., Best, S., & Hinkley, T. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192864642.003.0022
Straus, S. E., Hutton, B., Moher, D., Kelly, S., Wells, G. A., & Tricco, A. C. (2022) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2021-0141
Self-citationImplementation Science: Developing a Common Understanding for Use in Mental Health
Gutner, C. A., & Wells, S. Y. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818697-8.00086-8
Rapid Deductive Qualitative Analysis in Implementation Science: A Practical Training Protocol
Palmer, S., & Balis, L. E. (2026) · American Journal of Qualitative Research · doi:10.66815/ajqr/19192
Guiding Theories, Models, and Frameworks
BN, M. M. B. H., & Graham, F. I. D. (2021) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119123316.ch3
Porter, A. V., Joseph‐Williams, N., Leighton, C., Gal, M., Edwards, A., & Cooper, A. (2026) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-026-27268-6
Szoko, N., Wilson, T. K., Slade, E., et al. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-24040-0
How Can Researchers and Research Users Initiate Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) Partnerships
Zych, M. M. (2019) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
Implementation Science: Slowing Down to Install a Practice
Bertram, R. M., & Kerns, S. E. U. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11325-4_8
Artificial intelligence and knowledge translation in healthcare: a scoping review
Glória, H. N. B., & Fragelli, T. B. O. (2026) · Ciência & Saúde Coletiva · doi:10.1590/1413-81232026315.23892025en
Nielsen, K. M., Packull-McCormick, S. R., & Grant, L. E. (2026) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-026-03515-z
Obrecht, L., van Abswoude, F., Klingels, K., & Steenbergen, B. (2026) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-026-14488-0 · Cited by 2
Knowledge mobilization planning guides: a pragmatic synthesis and content analysis
Zaccagnini, M., McCutcheon, C., Angel, M., Mrklas, K., & Graham, I. D. (2026) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-026-00996-x
Pearce, N., CROSS, D. S., Francis, J., Sae-Koew, J. H., Godley, A. M., Attwell, C., Evans-Whipp, T. J., Allen, J. B. H., Homel, R. J., Olsson, C. A., et al. (2026) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-026-00567-5
Peters, D. H. (2023) · Sustainable development goals series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33851-9_39
Reichenpfader, U. (2019) · Linköping University medical dissertations · doi:10.3384/diss.diva-156274
Nunes, S. F. L., & Álvarez, Á. M. (2023) · Revista Enfermagem Atual In Derme · doi:10.31011/reaid-2023-v.97-n.3-art.1879
Ford, B. S., Glasgow, R. E., Mallard, K., Gomes, R. N., Gifford, M., Jamali, B., Brownson, R. C., Hamilton, A., Malone, S. M., & Rabin, B. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2026.1855885 · Cited by 1
Barth, J., Davila, H. W., O’Malley, K. A., Shin, M. H., Montano, A.-R. L., Howe, R. J., Levine, A. A., Evans, E., Pimentel, C. B., & Sullivan, J. L. (2026) · Global Implementation Research and Applications · doi:10.1007/s43477-025-00204-3
Thorpe, D., Wade, S., Swiecicki, C. C., Reid-Quiñones, K., & Hanson, R. F. (2025) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-025-01477-4
Battersby, L. (2019) · Summit (Simon Fraser University)
No Estimate, Big Problem: Measuring the Health Impact of Community Development Projects
Coles, E. (2020) · Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University)
Boczor, S., Hansen, H., Kloppe, T., Mews, C., Muche‐Borowski, C., Rakebrandt, A., Schäfer, I., Pohontsch, N. J., Böttcher, V., Fründt, T. W., et al. (2026) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-026-02977-z
Troidl, K., & Schroll-Decker, I. (2022) · Zeitschrift für Weiterbildungsforschung · doi:10.1007/s40955-022-00229-3
Assessing the Practice (Know-Do) Gap
Fahim, C., & Straus, S. E. (2022) · Springer Publishing Company eBooks · doi:10.1891/9780826186935.0002 · Cited by 1
Self-citationArtificial intelligence and knowledge translation in healthcare: a scoping review
Glória, H. N. B., & Fragelli, T. B. O. (2026) · Ciência & Saúde Coletiva · doi:10.1590/1413-81232026315.23892025 · Cited by 1
Malakellis, M., Shee, A. W., Alston, L. V., et al. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.64734
Younas, A., & Fàbregues, S. (2024) · Journal of Nursing Scholarship · doi:10.1111/jnu.12977 · Cited by 1
Lukersmith, S., Salvador‐Carulla, L., Gutiérrez-Colosía, M. R., Woods, C., Zeilinger, E. L., Castelpietra, G., GIAF Taxonomy Expert Panel group (group authors), Trujillo, F. A., Bulkeley, K., Chen, T., et al. (2026) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-026-00906-1
Metadata
- Authors
- Strifler, L., Cardoso, R., McGowan, J., Cogo, E., Nincic, V., Khan, P. A., Scott, A., Ghassemi, M., MacDonald, H., Lai, Y., Treister, V., Tricco, A. C., & Straus, S. E.
- Affiliations
- St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Straus, Sharon E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 100
- Pages
- 92-102
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2796645918
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 3.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Partenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- 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
- knowledge translation, implementation model, dissemination, evidence-based interventions, cancer prevention, chronic disease management, implementation planning, behavior change, organizational change, systemic change
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Databases, Bibliographic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Translational Research, Biomedical
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
