Cited by 53Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationOrganizational Change and Leadership

Advancing the use of organization theory in implementation science

Open access
Leeman, Jennifer, Baquero, Barbara, Bender, Miriam, Choy-Brown, Mimi, Ko, Linda K., Nilsen, Per, Wangen, Mary, Birken, Sarah A.·2019·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Healthcare settings and systems have been slow to adopt and implement many effective cancer prevention and control interventions. Understanding the factors that determine successful implementation is essential to accelerating the translation of effective interventions into practice. Many scholars have studied the determinants of implementation, and much of this research has been guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR categorizes implementation determinants at five levels (characteristics of the intervention, inner setting, individual, processes, and outer setting). Of these five levels, determinants at the level of the outer setting are the least developed. Extensive research in fields other than healthcare suggest that determinants at the level of the outer setting (e.g., funding streams, contracting practices, and public policy) play a central role in shaping when and how an organization implements new structures and practices. Thus, a more comprehensive understanding of outer-setting determinants is critical to efforts to accelerate the implementation of effective cancer control interventions. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) created a cross-center workgroup to review organizational theories and begin to contribute to the creation of a future framework of constructs related to outer setting determinants. In this paper, we report findings from the review of three organizational theories: Institutional Theory, Transaction Cost Economics, and Contingency Theory. To demonstrate the applicability of this work to implementation science and practice, we have applied findings to three case studies of CPCRN researchers' efforts to implement colorectal cancer screening interventions in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

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.ypmed.2019.105832

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Users noted the absence of equity considerations, including racism, patriarchy and misogyny, in the CFIR.

    “users noted the absence of equity considerations [40, 42], including “more specifically racism, patriarchy and misogyny, that [are] so much a part of the care that we provide” (survey response).”

    From The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback (2022) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Discussion identifies outer-setting determinants that extend CFIR, but does not report users noting an absence of equity considerations. Searches for equity, racism, patriarchy, misogyny, and users’ criticisms found no passage addressing the attributed point; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leeman, J., Baquero, B., Bender, M., Choy-Brown, M., Ko, L. K., Nilsen, P., Wangen, M., & Birken, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Leeman, Jennifer
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
129
Pages
105832
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2972624834
Cited by
53
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
FWCI
7.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
Keywords
implementation factors, organizational theory, institutional theory, transaction cost economics, contingency theory, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, colorectal cancer screening, federally qualified health centers, translation of evidence into practice, public policy
MeSH terms
Implementation Science, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer

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