The DOI matches its Crossref record; 144 of the 144 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 11 of the 139 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Sustainability of Evidence-Based Interventions and Practices in Public Health and Health Care
Open accessAbstract
There is strong interest in implementation science to address the gap between research and practice in public health. Research on the sustainability of evidence-based interventions has been growing rapidly. Sustainability has been defined as the continued use of program components at sufficient intensity for the sustained achievement of desirable program goals and population outcomes. This understudied area has been identified as one of the most significant translational research problems. Adding to this challenge is uncertainty regarding the extent to which intervention adaptation and evolution are necessary to address the needs of populations that differ from those in which interventions were originally tested or implemented. This review critically examines and discusses conceptual and methodological issues in studying sustainability, summarizes the multilevel factors that have been found to influence the sustainability of interventions in a range of public health and health care settings, and highlights key areas for future research.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes conceptual, methodological, and empirical work on the sustainability of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in public health and health care, arguing that sustainability is an understudied translational problem and an increasingly dynamic construct that permits adaptation. It proposes an Integrated Sustainability Framework of multilevel factors and lays out a research agenda for measurement, design, and sustainment strategies.
Key findings
- Rates of sustainability are variable and variably reported: in Scheirer's review of 19 health-related programs, 40–60% reported continuing in the community to some extent one to six years after adoption; in Stirman and colleagues' systematic review of 125 empirical studies, partial sustainability was much more common than continued implementation of the entire intervention, and fewer than half of programs continued at high levels of fidelity.
- Measurement and definitional problems are pervasive: 65% of studies in Stirman et al.'s review did not define sustainability, only 45% of the 125 studies measured continued delivery of program components among sites or providers, and only 22% reported information about health behaviors or outcomes.
- Empirical evidence supports dynamic, multilevel influences on sustainability, categorized as outer contextual factors, inner contextual/organizational factors, processes, intervention characteristics, and implementer characteristics (presented in the Integrated Sustainability Framework and Table 1).
- Setting-specific findings include: in a study of 110 Communities That Care sites in Pennsylvania, 90% of coalitions continued after the three-year initial funding period, with 3–8% of sites terminating each year after; in Cooper et al.'s study of 77 EBIs in a statewide youth substance-use and delinquency initiative, sustained programs more often reported stakeholder connection/communication, fit with organizational capacity, program knowledge, communication with the trainer/developer, and sustainability planning; a review of 41 studies across 26 countries in sub-Saharan Africa highlighted community engagement, community resources, and mobilization.
Methods
- Narrative critical review (published in the Annual Review of Public Health symposium on Implementation Science and Public Health), not a primary study; it examines conceptual and methodological issues, summarizes multilevel influencing factors, and identifies future research directions.
- Evidence base is the published sustainability literature across community, health care/social service, low- and middle-income country, and whole-systems settings, including prior systematic reviews (e.g., 125 studies; 19 programs; 41 studies across 26 countries).
- The authors synthesize this literature into an Integrated Sustainability Framework (Figure 1) and a table of emerging factors associated with sustainability across settings (Table 1).
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: the sustainability literature has been naturalistic, descriptive, exploratory, retrospective, and shaped by short-term funding cycles; few studies are guided by conceptual frameworks with clear operational definitions or rigorous outcome measures; follow-up periods are variable; most studies rely on self-report with few independent observations or fidelity assessments; there is no consensus on measures and psychometric properties are unreported for most; most conceptual frameworks have not been empirically tested; and there are gaps regarding which factors are most critical, how they interact, and whether importance differs by context or intervention type.
- Stated in the paper: the underlying evidence base for EBIs often prioritizes internal over external validity, is drawn from well-resourced settings and unrepresentative populations, and reports short-term effectiveness metrics.
- Evident from the text: as a narrative review rather than a systematic review with a stated search strategy, the synthesis is selective and does not report formal quality appraisal or quantitative pooling of the cited studies.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
73 Not checked yet · 16 Own interpretation · 12 No basis given · 6 Partly supported · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Whereas the early literature on sustainability focused largely on institutionalization and routinization (e.g., integrating a new set of practices into the routine operations of an organization) (129, 149), there has been recognition over the past 20 years that institutionalization may impede organizations or communities from adopting more effective practices when new evidence emerges (135).”
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.
In the paper
“Furthermore, discontinuing or abandoning programs in community settings may result in low levels of community support and trust in research and public health/medical institutions (122).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [122] source
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
In the paper
“In a systematic review of 125 empirical studies focused on the sustainability of public health and clinical interventions (135), researchers found that even when full implementation was originally achieved, partial sustainability was much more common than the continued implementation of the entire intervention.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [135] source
plainstates an association- 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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the metrics of effectiveness that are reported in these contexts are typically short-term.”
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a challenge in capturing these data and comparing rates has been the variability in how sustainability has been conceptualized, defined, and measured across studies.”
plainstates a cause- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Initial research considered deviations from the intervention as originally specified in a protocol or manual to be an implementation failure, even when the setting, population, or circumstances differed substantially from those of the initial experimental research that had proved the intervention's effectiveness (3, 9).”
What the sources say
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas significant advancements have been made in understanding the adoption and implementation of EBIs across a range of community and health care settings, less is known about their sustainability.”
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.
In the paper
“Overall, fewer than half of the programs continued at high levels of fidelity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [135] 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.
In the paper
“Whereas the early literature on sustainability focused largely on institutionalization and routinization (e.g., integrating a new set of practices into the routine operations of an organization) (129, 149), there has been recognition over the past 20 years that institutionalization may impede organizations or communities from adopting more effective practices when new evidence emerges (135).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [135] source
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
In the paper
“Although numerous evidence-based public health interventions and clinical preventive strategies and treatments are available, it can be challenging to implement and sustain them outside of controlled settings, particularly if they were originally tested in narrow populations or unrepresentative circumstances (49).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] source
plainstates a possible cause- 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. 50
- It may state two separate claims as one. 35
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Researchers have often conceptualized sustainability as the final stage in the overall life cycle of an intervention, including development, adoption, implementation (with potential adaptations), and sustainability (14, 31, 52, 110, 115, 118).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] source
- Partly supportedcites [31] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Classical Diffusion Paradigm describes potential adopters progressing through consideration, adoption, implementation, and maintained use; Intervention Adaptation also discusses sustainability following adoption and implementation. These passages support the general sequence, but they do not explicitly establish that researchers have often conceptualized sustainability as the final stage of an intervention’s overall life cycle. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Not checked yetcites [52] 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.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although several studies have applied the PSAT measure or framework (62, 76, 138, 141), it is not evident whether the tool captures all relevant domains, and research is needed to validate the tool across diverse contexts.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [62] source
The citation is attached to the statement that studies have applied the PSAT, not to the citing authors’ subsequent concern about whether it captures all relevant domains. The Methods > Measures passage describes this study’s use of the PSAT’s eight subscales and reports their reliability in its samples. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites [76] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction identifies the PSAT and says it was tested in public health programs. The Discussion (page unavailable) says testing had been limited to chronic disease programs and calls for research on its utility in other fields, supporting the need for validation across contexts. It does not establish that several studies had applied the tool or explicitly question whether its eight domains capture all relevant domains. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Supportedcites [138] source
The Abstract Methods section reports that this study administered the PSAT across four program sites, confirming its use as an example of a study applying the tool. The citations in the citing sentence attach to that application claim; the subsequent uncertainty about whether the tool captures all relevant domains is the citing authors’ own assessment. (LLM, conf=0.91)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Whether various phases of the implementation process have different predictors that necessitate distinct conceptual frameworks is unknown (135).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [135] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Background says factors that facilitate initial implementation may diminish in influence over time, and the Discussion recommends separating initial implementation from the post-implementation phase. The Discussion also says it is not yet known which sustainability models suit differing programs and circumstances. It does not specifically say that whether different implementation phases require distinct conceptual frameworks is unknown. (LLM, conf=0.82)
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Some research suggests that adaptation is likely necessary to promote sustainability (7, 8, 23), although other studies suggest that certain types of adaptation decrease the benefits associated with the intervention (68, 128).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s sustainability discussion (page not provided) says intervention fit and modifiability are associated with sustainment, and describes adaptation as critical under changing conditions. But it treats the broader claim that adaptations increase sustainability as insufficiently tested; it does not establish that adaptation is generally necessary. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked yetcites [8] 8. Baumann A, Cabassa L, Wiltsey Stirman S. 2017. Adaptation in dissemination and implementation science. See Ref. 17, pp. 285–300 source
- Supportedcites [23] source
The Abstract (Discussion) proposes ongoing adaptation of interventions to maintain their fit with changing contexts as they are sustained. The Background (Understanding and advancing sustainability research) also describes an adaptation phase in which changes improve integration into ongoing care. These passages support the citing sentence’s hedged claim. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The core domains they identified include environmental support, funding stability, partnerships, organizational capacity, program evaluation, program adaptation, communications, and strategic planning.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [121] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Concept mapping; Development of capacity for sustainability framework) identify seven of the eight domains listed in the claim. The paper lists nine domains in total: it does not name “environmental support” as a domain, and the claim omits Political Support and Public Health Impacts. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“More work is needed to determine what types of adaptation may specifically enhance sustainability and what types may erode the benefits or delivery of the intervention over time (135, 137).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [135] source
In Discussion > Recommendations for advancing the empirical literature (page not available), the paper calls for research on how different types and degrees of adaptation affect health benefits. It also describes refinements that may facilitate continued use and adaptations that may erode an intervention’s core elements and desired outcomes. This supports the claim that more work is needed to distinguish helpful from harmful adaptations over time. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [137] source
The Discussion calls for investigating how specific modifications affect sustainability and clinical outcomes. It also says that the types of modification that can occur without compromising effectiveness or degrading fidelity have not been sufficiently explored. Together, these passages support the claim that more work is needed to distinguish adaptations that help sustain an intervention from those that erode its benefits or delivery. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Despite this breadth, there are still gaps, including a dearth of studies focused on understanding the sustainability of interventions for people living with chronic diseases (142).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [142] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says many implementation studies examine short-term outcomes rather than long-term sustainability, and the Abstract’s Methods and analysis identifies chronic disease management as the planned review’s focus. But this is a review protocol: it does not establish that studies specifically concerning interventions for people living with chronic diseases are scarce. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recently, experts have prioritized sustainability as an understudied area (45), identifying it as “one of the most significant translational research problems of our time” (103, p. 2) and as a persistent challenge across a range of settings and service delivery sectors, and across health behaviors and outcomes.”
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
“It is also worth noting that sustainability, as defined above, is not the only endpoint to consider in the implementation process. As the eligible population changes and the needs of the community change, or more effective or appropriate interventions are identified, the evolution or even replacement of an intervention might be more warranted than sustainment.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This framework challenges scholars in the field to scrutinize their assumptions about which elements are indeed core elements of the intervention and to consider data-driven adaptation and evolution as essential aspects of sustainability (23).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] source
plainstates a cause- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, as noted above, Chambers and colleagues (23) introduced the Dynamic Sustainability Framework (DSF) to address this gap, consistent with recent conceptualizations that move away from thinking about sustainability as the endgame to see it as an ongoing dynamic process (118).”
plainstates a cause- 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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In light of these conceptual challenges as well as the relative infancy of the literature on sustainability, little is known about the extent to which EBIs in health care and public health settings are sustained or about whether their impact on health is maintained after the initial implementation.”
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rates of sustainability have been variable and variably reported.”
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
“These studies also tend to be conducted in well-resourced settings and unrepresentative populations, making the conditions of implementation also unrepresentative (48).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] source
plainstates a cause- 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 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
“For example, as public health programs evolve over time in response to changes in (and input from) the community, the maturation of program staff, and increased skills and refinement in delivery, the sustainability of public health interventions may look different from that of medical interventions, which are highly standardized and may require closer adherence to protocols.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Medical interventions are highly standardized and may require closer adherence to protocols.
- Rests on an assumption: Public health programs evolve over time in response to changes in and input from the community, the maturation of program staff, and increased skills and refinement in delivery.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Among those studies that did provide definitions, sustainability was the most commonly used term (116, 122, 135).”
What the sources say
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 DSF suggests instead that interventions should not be considered optimized until they have been implemented, tested, and refined in the settings in which they will be ultimately delivered.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] source
hedged- 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
“Sustainability has been increasingly conceptualized as a more dynamic construct that allows for adaptation and capacity building in response to new evidence, policies, or other influences (23, 58, 66, 72).”
What the sources say
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite a growing interest in research on sustainability, the literature has been highly fragmented across topical areas and disciplines.”
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
“It is important for researchers to consider that sustainability may very well differ across settings and by type of intervention.”
hedgedstates an association- 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
“This finding is consistent with a recent review of sustained EBIs in under-resourced settings (60).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [60] 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
“In Stirman and colleagues’ (135) review, 65% of studies did not define sustainability, and many definitions were developed anew by the study's authors.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [135] 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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, very little is known about the nature and influence of processes (training, planning, partnerships, evaluation, engagement) on sustainability.”
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Schell and colleagues (121) recently developed a framework to identify the core domains of a public health program's capacity for sustainability.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [121] 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
“In recent years, scholars have developed an overarching multilevel framework of recognized influences on sustainability (118, 122), which includes the categories of intervention characteristics, organizational setting factors, and the broader context/community environment.”
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
“Rather than testing comprehensive frameworks, many studies have examined individual factors or have used qualitative research to identify stakeholder perspectives on sustainability (38, 70, 95).”
What the sources say
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A number of sustainability frameworks have been developed in recent years (132), with some focusing on intervention characteristics that influence sustainability (107) and others focusing more on contextual influences (2, 58).”
What the sources say
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
“Such measures, rather than diluting the interventions, may ultimately improve them and increase the likelihood of sustainability.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is important to consider that some adaptations are not deviations from the original effective components of the program and may be beneficial (11, 21, 22, 148).”
What the sources say
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Few studies have been guided by conceptual frameworks with clear operational definitions or have used rigorous outcome measures of sustainability.”
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
“In Stirman and colleagues’ (135) review, only 45% of the 125 studies measured continued delivery of program components among sites or providers, and only 22% of the studies reported information about health behaviors or outcomes.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [135] 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They assert that the factors that influence the initial adoption of EBIs may differ from those that influence sustainability (115, 122), and that different factors might be more influential at different time points (2).”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not 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 authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These categories are similar to those identified in existing implementation frameworks (2, 30) and are fairly consistent with Stirman's classifications (innovation characteristics, context, capacity, processes), as well as with factors hypothesized to influence sustainment in the EPIS model (135).”
What the sources say
hedgedstates an association- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“What is currently known, though, is that although high fidelity has been associated with positive program outcomes (34), adaptation is fairly common (3, 86, 125, 150) and often necessary.”
What the sources say
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.
In the paper
“Some have suggested that an intervention should remain recognizable to be considered sustained (135).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [135] source
hedged- Asserted: fails — The authors may not 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 authors may not put it forward as true. 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
“For example, some elements may be necessary for some populations but not others.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Some intervention elements may be necessary for some populations but not others.
In the paper
“They assert that the factors that influence the initial adoption of EBIs may differ from those that influence sustainability (115, 122), and that different factors might be more influential at different time points (2).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not 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 authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some research suggests that adaptation is likely necessary to promote sustainability (7, 8, 23), although other studies suggest that certain types of adaptation decrease the benefits associated with the intervention (68, 128).”
hedgedstates a cause- 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
“What is currently known, though, is that although high fidelity has been associated with positive program outcomes (34), adaptation is fairly common (3, 86, 125, 150) and often necessary.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
plainstates an association- 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
“One review found that most of the empirical research on sustainability has focused on multicomponent interventions across diverse fields and topics, with about one-third of the programs focused on health care interventions, one-third on behavioral and mental health interventions, and one-third on health promotion interventions (135).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [135] 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.
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
“Although more research is needed, research to date suggests that additional factors to consider include synchronization between local, regional, and state policies; potential conflicting stakeholder interests; and the potential need for adaptation, given that homogenous implementation is difficult across systems.”
hedged- 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: Homogenous implementation is difficult across systems.
In the paper
“Scheirer (117) proposed that one size does not fit all with interventions, and that sustainability research and planning might differ based on intervention structure (e.g., what the interventions are and how they are implemented).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [117] source
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
“Scheirer proposed six types of interventions or programs distinguished by their structure, namely (a) interventions implemented by individual providers; (b) interventions requiring coordination among multiple staff; (c) new policies, procedures, and technologies; (d) capacity or infrastructure building; (e) collaborative partnerships or coalitions; and (f) broad-scale system change.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [117] 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
“In terms of measuring multilevel factors related to the sustainability of community-based health interventions, Mancini & Marek (80) introduced the Program Sustainability Index; although this framework is promising, more work is needed in establishing its validity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [80] 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such studies indicate the importance of strategic partnerships (89, 112) and the impact of the broader social context and of health system weaknesses (15, 63) as important influences on sustainability.”
What the sources say
hedgedstates an association- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To date, the empirical literature suggests the existence of important categories of factors that influence sustainability across settings and are dynamically related. They are outer contextual factors (e.g., sociopolitical context, funding environment), inner contextual or organizational factors (e.g., financial resources, leadership, program champions, organizational support, staff stability, po”
What the sources say
hedgedstates an association- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other examples include the British National Health Service Sustainability Index, a 10-item measure of an organization's likelihood to sustain practices (78), the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (76, 138), and the Sustained Implementation Support Scale, a scale that measures factors that affect the implementation process among practitioners (61).”
What the sources say
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 study of 110 CTC sites in Pennsylvania found that 90% of coalitions continued after the three-year initial funding period, with 3–8% of sites terminating each year after (36).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In recent years, sustainability outcomes have been conceptualized as (118, 119, 135) (a) continuing or improving health benefits or outcomes for patients/consumers at the individual level; (b) maintaining community-level partnerships or coalitions and community capacity for collaboration; (c) maintaining organizational practices, procedures, and policies started during implementation (institutiona”
What the sources say
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
“As the discussion of fidelity and adaptation above suggests, there has also been debate about how to measure the core components of a program, particularly when applied to varied contexts and populations (22).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] source
hedged- 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
“Recent research suggests that multiple aspects of sustainability may require different data sources and levels of analysis, and sustainability outcome indicators may vary (120).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [120] source
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Time periods for follow-up have been variable (due in part to funding constraints, and because the health issues/behaviors studied are variable), and most studies have used self-report, with very few studies using independent observation and/or fidelity assessments.”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Prospective, multilevel, and mixed-methods study designs are ideal for studying sustainability (94, 98).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additional proposed sustainability outcomes include documentation of the extent to which the interventions continue to be implemented (135), adaptation of intervention components (135), sustained attention to an issue or problem (media, public, policy agendas) (118), and program diffusion and replication in other sites (118).”
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is a growing body of literature documenting the efficacy of implementation strategies through randomized controlled trials, which have shown impacts on implementation outcomes like adoption and fidelity; however, few studies have examined their effects on sustainability (101, 102).”
plainstates a cause- 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 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
“3. Sustainability is increasingly conceptualized as a dynamic construct that allows for adaptation in response to new or changing populations, evidence, policies, or other contextual influences.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“1. Sustainability is critical to address, as it is a persistent challenge across a range of public health and health care settings, service delivery sectors, and health behaviors and outcomes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“2. There have been methodological and conceptual limitations in measuring sustainability and determining both how much of the original intervention must be in place for it to be considered sustained, and what types and how much adaptation is necessary and appropriate in real-world settings that may include new populations and contexts.”
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. 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
“5. Recommended sustainability outcomes include continuation of program components, capacity building, and continued health benefits or outcomes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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. It may be too vague to check against evidence. 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
“9. Conceptual and methodological guidance and agendas for conducting sustainability research have been introduced in recent years, providing an opportunity for this rapidly evolving field to coalesce with the next generation of research.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. 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
“Different terms are used that mean similar concepts, and there are discrepancies in terms of which factor fits under which category within different conceptual frameworks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. 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
“7. As illustrated in the Integrated Sustainability Framework, empirical literature suggests the existence of dynamic interactions among outer contextual factors, inner contextual or organizational factors, processes, intervention characteristics, and implementer characteristics; these appear to be important categories of factors influencing sustainability across settings.”
hedgedstates an association- 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. 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
“Sustainability research is a rapidly evolving area within implementation science.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“4. Contextual factors such as differences in population, service structures, and sociopolitical context can influence the ways in which interventions evolve after implementation and are sustained across time in real-world settings, particularly if interventions were originally tested among narrow populations or under unrepresentative circumstances.”
plainstates a possible cause- 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“A particularly important issue to address is the tension between the long-term sustainability of the program (and associated expectations of fidelity to its original form) and adaptation.”
plainstates an association- 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.
The paper relies on this without support.
Medical interventions are highly standardized and may require closer adherence to protocols.
“which are highly standardized and may require closer adherence to protocols.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Public health programs evolve over time in response to changes in and input from the community, the maturation of program staff, and increased skills and refinement in delivery.
“as public health programs evolve over time in response to changes in (and input from) the community, the maturation of program staff, and increased skills and refinement in delivery”
The paper relies on this without support.
Some intervention elements may be necessary for some populations but not others.
“For example, some elements may be necessary for some populations but not others.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Homogenous implementation is difficult across systems.
“given that homogenous implementation is difficult across systems.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) model of implementation [50] and the Integrated Sustainability Framework [16] have recognized inner (e.g., inter-organizational support and champions, adequate staff) and outer (e.g., socio-political context and funding environment) contextual factors predictive of successful initial and continued program implementation.”
From Using qualitative comparative analysis to uncover multiple pathways to program sustainment: implications for community-based youth substance misuse prevention (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These findings align with existing implementation and sustainment frameworks.”
From Using qualitative comparative analysis to uncover multiple pathways to program sustainment: implications for community-based youth substance misuse prevention (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This work will aid in the development of interventions and strategies that respond to identified gaps based on these measures, which will serve to further advance sustainability of evidence informed programs and practices [1].”
From Lowering the burden: Shorter versions of the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT) and Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT) (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This assessment responds to the need for reliable measures within implementation science, specifically in the area of sustainability research (1, 32, 33).”
From Assessing the sustainability capacity of evidence-based programs in community and health settings (2022) · cites this paper as [1]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Despite an increase in the number of studies focusing on program sustainment, there remains a relative dearth of empirical evidence on the combinations of factors associated with sustainment [15, 16, 59], especially those guided by established sustainment frameworks and measurement tools [23].”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While methodological advances have been made within the area, reviews have still highlighted an need to develop psychometrically tested measures to assess sustainability and sustainment [1].”
From Lowering the burden: Shorter versions of the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT) and Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT) (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“Team 1 has been sustained since 2017 and Team 2 since 2018, longer than the 2 years suggested as a minimum for defining a sustained program [47, 56]”
From Factors influencing sustainability and scale-up of rural primary healthcare memory clinics: perspectives of clinic team members (2022) · cites this paper as [56]
Citations
Cites
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
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 · Cited by 8,721
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (2002) · Journal for Healthcare Quality · doi:10.1111/j.1945-1474.2002.tb00463.x · Cited by 8,508
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
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0 · Cited by 5,304
Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M. J., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., Proctor, E. K., & Kirchner, J. E. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 · Cited by 4,963
Curran, G. M., Bauer, M., Mittman, B., Pyne, J. M., & Stetler, C. (2012) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182408812 · Cited by 4,058
Gluesing, J. C. (2012) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412994231.n14 · Cited by 3,264
Advancing a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors
Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7 · Cited by 3,240
Bellg, A. J., Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the NIH Behavior Change Consortium, Borrelli, B., Resnick, B., Hecht, J., Minicucci, D. S., Ory, M., Ogedegbe, G., Orwig, D., Ernst, D., et al. (2004) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443 · Cited by 2,620
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 55. Green LW, Kreuter MW. 2005. Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach . New York: McGraw-Hill Co.
- 85. Minkler M, Wallerstein N. 2011. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes . New York: Wiley
- Moore JE, 2016, Healthc. Policy, 11, 27
- Stirman SW, Optimizing the Cancer Control Continuum: Advancing Implementation Research, 2018
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 823
Ishola, O. D., Holcombe, S. J., Ferrand, A., Ajijola, L., Anieto, N. N., & Igharo, V. I. (2022) · Global Health Science and Practice · doi:10.9745/ghsp-d-22-00228 · Cited by 4
Shekar, S., Bachmann, M. O., Bateman, E. D., Stelmach, R., Cruz, Á. A., Zonta, R., de Andrade, M. P., Zepeda, J., Cornick, R. V., Wattrus, C., et al. (2024) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013819 · Cited by 4
Benzies, K. M., Zanoni, P., & McNeil, D. A. (2024) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-024-00644-2 · Cited by 4
Dopp, A. R., North, M. N., Gilbert, M., Ringel, J. S., Silovsky, J. F., Blythe, M., Edwards, D., Schmidt, S. R., & Funderburk, B. W. (2024) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/26334895241249394 · Cited by 3
Shrestha, P., Limbu, A., Tiwari, K., & Chase, L. (2024) · SSM - Mental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmmh.2024.100359 · Cited by 3
Paediatric oncology short learning programmes for nurses: a scoping review
Majamanda, M. D., Chisoni, F., Selemani, A., Kearns, I. J., & Maree, J. E. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085439 · Cited by 3
Onyeama, U. F., Fidelak, L., Tang, W., Nkengasong, S., Gbaja-Biamila, T. A., Blessing, L. A., Musa, A. Z., Akinsolu, F. T., Musari-Martins, T. E., Okwuzu, J. O., et al. (2025) · Sexual Health · doi:10.1071/sh24233 · Cited by 3
Costa‐Cordella, S., Sieverson, C., Rossi, A., Grasso‐Cladera, A., Díaz, M. V., & Byrne, G. (2025) · Journal of Child and Family Studies · doi:10.1007/s10826-025-03114-y · Cited by 3
Boakye, D. S., & Adjorlolo, S. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-105448 · Cited by 3
Griffin, A. C., Javier, S. J., Golding, M., Runnels, T. W., Matthias, M. S., Shimada, S. L., Higgins, D. M., Zulman, D. M., & Midboe, A. M. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/78173 · Cited by 4
Toward sustainable interventions for enhancing vigilance: A scoping review
Prendez, D. M., Li, J., Higgins, E. A., & Kim, J.-E. (2025) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104628 · Cited by 3
Fathi, L. I., Walker, J. L., Dix, C. F., Previte, J., Olgacher, D., Woodside, J. V., & Truby, H. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-24891-7 · Cited by 3
So what? Elevating the impact of implementation science
Brownson, R. C., Iwelunmor, J., Odeny, T., Proctor, E. K., & Geng, E. (2025) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-025-00831-9 · Cited by 5
Backman, B., Middel, C. N. H., Yoong, S., Gupta, A., Imad, N., Brown, V., & Blake, M. R. (2026) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.70143 · Cited by 3
Spyrelis, A., Taylor, T. M., & Thurman, T. R. (2022) · Children & Society · doi:10.1111/chso.12533 · 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
Poku, O. B., Eschliman, E. L., Wang, R. Y., Rampa, S., Mehta, H. T., Entaile, P., Li, T., Jackson, V., Foster, A. H., Blank, M. B., et al. (2022) · Global Health Science and Practice · doi:10.9745/ghsp-d-22-00232 · Cited by 4
Development and Application of the Scale-Up Reflection Guide (SRG)
Lee, K., Crane, M. A., Grunseit, A. C., O'Hara, B. J., Milat, A., Wolfenden, L., Bauman, A. E., & van Nassau, F. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20116014 · Cited by 3
Chasanah, N., Gunawan, I., & Baroudi, B. (2023) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.2967 · Cited by 5
Sarfan, L. D., Agnew, E. R., Diaz, M., Cogan, A. B., Spencer, J. M., Hache, R. E., Stirman, S. W., Lewis, C. C., Kilbourne, A. M., & Harvey, A. G. (2024) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-023-07900-1 · Cited by 4
Self-citationLindquist, K. M., Mendon, S. J., Timmins, G. T., Dopp, A. R., & Hunter, S. B. (2024) · JAACAP Open · doi:10.1016/j.jaacop.2024.02.002 · Cited by 3
Implementation Science: Strategies to Improve Adoption and Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines
Jones, L. K., Sarkies, M., Gionfriddo, M. R., Gidding, S. S., & Watts, G. F. (2024) · Contemporary cardiology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-54960-1_6 · Cited by 3
Savolainen, E., Lindqvist, A.-K., & Rutberg, S. (2024) · Journal of Transport & Health · doi:10.1016/j.jth.2024.101867 · Cited by 3
Bearman, S. K., Rohde, P., Pauling, S., Gau, J. M., Shaw, H. E., & Stice, E. M. (2024) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-024-01373-9 · Cited by 4
Ramanadhan, S., Cruz, J. L., Weese, M., Kirk, S., Rivard, M. K., Eisenkraft, A., Peterson, K., Kirk, J., Whitaker, A., Nwamuo, C., et al. (2024) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/tbm/ibae051 · Cited by 3
Bowden, L., Hetrick, S. E., Cargo, T., Woodfield, M. J., Meinhardt, I., Clark, T. C., & Fortune, S. A. (2025) · Mental Health & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.mhp.2025.200391 · Cited by 3
Zoschke, I. N., Gallardo, K. R., Gillespie, D., Stewart, H. L. N., Rodriguez, S. A., McCurdy, S., & Wilkerson, J. M. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1528971 · Cited by 3
Rosen, J. G., Arnold, T. L., & Crane, M. E. (2025) · Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS · doi:10.1097/coh.0000000000000976 · Cited by 3
Li, G., Fan, Z., Zhou, Y., Chen, Y., Shi, X., Xie, X., & Zhang, L. (2022) · Global Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.glt.2022.12.002 · Cited by 3
Strategies to Curb the Increasing Burden of Early Onset Colorectal Cancer
Yen, T., Levin, T. R., & Patel, S. G. (2023) · Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.tige.2023.01.008 · Cited by 3
Fritz, J. M., Greene, T., Brennan, G. P., Minick, K. I., Lane, E., Wegener, S. T., & Skolasky, R. L. (2023) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-023-07150-1 · Cited by 3
Imad, N., Pearson, N., Hall, A. E., Shoesmith, A., Nathan, N., Giles, L., Grady, A., & Yoong, S. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20065043 · Cited by 3
Supporting Sustained STAR-VA Implementation: Evaluation of a Sustainment Coaching Program
Bower, E. S., Curyto, K. J., & Karel, M. J. (2023) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2023.03.037 · Cited by 3
Ramanadhan, S., Weese, M., Rosas, S. R., Cruz, J. L., Chwa, C., Rivard, M. K., Kirk, S., Whitaker, A., Kirk, J., Peterson, K., et al. (2023) · Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1017/cts.2023.586 · Cited by 3
Wong, V., Franke, T., McKay, H. A., Tong, C., MACDONALD, H. M., & Sims‐Gould, J. (2023) · Journal of Aging and Physical Activity · doi:10.1123/japa.2023-0064 · Cited by 3
Unlocking What Makes Military Behavioral Health Interventions Work, Stumble, or Fade Away
Slep, A. M. S., Rhoades, K. A., & Heyman, R. E. (2024) · Military Medicine · doi:10.1093/milmed/usae038 · Cited by 3
Investigating the relationships between health and innovation systems to guide innovation adoption
Leonard, E., de Kock, I. H., & Bam, W. G. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) · doi:10.1109/ice.2019.8792677 · Cited by 3
Schröder, K. (2021) · Linköping University medical dissertations · doi:10.3384/diss.diva-179586 · Cited by 3
Mazzucca, S., Saliba, L. F., Smith, R., Weno, E. R., Allen, P. M., Padek, M. M., & Brownson, R. C. (2022) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-021-00252-4 · Cited by 3
Teychenne, M. J., Apostolopoulos, M., France‐Ratcliffe, M., Chua, E., Hall, S., Opie, R., Blunden, S. L., Duncan, M. J., Olander, E. K., & Koorts, H. (2023) · Health Promotion Journal of Australia · doi:10.1002/hpja.767 · Cited by 3
Flores, A., Wiener, R. S., Hon, S. M., Wakeman, C., Howard, J., Virani, N., Mattus, B., Foreman, A. G., Singh, J., Rosén, L., et al. (2024) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntae023 · Cited by 3
When Policy Hits Practice – Learning from the Failed Implementation of MST-EA in Australia
Albers, B., & Shlonsky, A. (2020) · Human Services Organizations Management Leadership & Governance · doi:10.1080/23303131.2020.1779893 · Cited by 3
Community Substance Use Safety
Watts, J. R., McDaniels, B. W., Rivera-Torres, S., Resiak, D., Mpofu, E., & Redwine, S. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59687-3_6 · Cited by 3
Johannessen, T. (2022) · University of Stavanger eBooks · doi:10.31265/usps.138 · Cited by 2
Iverson, K. M., Brady, J. E., Adjognon, O. L., Stolzmann, K. L., Dichter, M. E., Bruce, L. E., Portnoy, G. A., Iqbal, S., Gerber, M. R., Haskell, S. G., et al. (2024) · Women s Health Issues · doi:10.1016/j.whi.2024.07.001 · Cited by 2
Use of Implementation Science Concepts in the Study of Misinformation: A Scoping Review
Bang, C., Carroll, K. A., Mistry, N. B., Presseau, J., Hudek, N., Yanikomeroglu, S., & Brehaut, J. (2024) · Health Education & Behavior · doi:10.1177/10901981241303871 · Cited by 2
Gordon, C. J., Koenig, L. J., Psihopaidas, D., Refsland, E. W., & Mandt, R. E. K. (2025) · JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · doi:10.1097/qai.0000000000003629 · Cited by 2
Crable, E. L., Meffert, S. M., Kenneally, R. G., Ongeri, L., Bukusi, D. E., Burger, R. L., Rota, G., Otieno, A., Rotai, R., Mathai, M., et al. (2025) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-025-00744-7 · Cited by 3
Ten simple rules for research with humans
Coates, M. K., Sava, T. V., & Tashjian, S. M. (2025) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013362 · Cited by 2
Shahid, A., Graham, K., & Benzies, K. (2025) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2025.1638587 · Cited by 2
A Qualitative Rubric for Evaluating Program Sustainability
Hock, A., Foxe, J., & Litzler, E. (2025) · Innovative Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10755-025-09847-4 · Cited by 3
Mylonas, N., Scoles, L. H., Priyam, A., Rodgers, A., Holcroft, D., Carey, J., Myton, T., O'Donnell, A. J., Drummond, C., Lovell, K., et al. (2025) · Drugs Education Prevention and Policy · doi:10.1080/09687637.2025.2574263 · Cited by 2
Liang, Z., & Zhang, H. (2025) · Journal of Healthcare Leadership · doi:10.2147/jhl.s547285 · Cited by 2
Szewczyk, Z., MACDONALD, H. M., Pinheiro, M. B., Nettlefold, L., Sims‐Gould, J., & McKay, H. A. (2025) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-025-01826-4 · Cited by 2
Dopp, A. R., Bongard, M., Han, B., Hindmarch, G., Shiferaw, M., Mendon, S. J., Tumendemberel, B., Timmins, G. T., Reeder, K., Pantoja, P. M., et al. (2025) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-025-01471-2 · Cited by 2
Luke, D. A., Malone, S. M., & Galea, S. (2025) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-091624-015015 · Cited by 2
Backman, B., Blake, M. R., Zorbas, C., Chung, A., Schulz, S., Brown, V., Mäki, P., & Yoong, S. (2025) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118876 · Cited by 2
Poole, N. L., van den Brand, F. A., Willemsen, M. C., & Nagelhout, G. E. (2023) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16529-3 · Cited by 2
Sustainability of a Child Mental Health Intervention in Child Welfare Services: Case study
Pisciotta, C., Hill-Kane, R., Winters, A. M., Hooley, C., Lee, K. A., Green, T., & Gopalan, G. (2023) · Medical Research Archives · doi:10.18103/mra.v11i10.4524 · Cited by 2
Watterson, T. L., Moon, J., Stone, J. A., Gilson, A. M., Berbakov, M. E., Hoffins, E. L., Chladek, J. S., Lehnbom, E. C., Resendiz, S. M., Mai, S., et al. (2024) · Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100486 · Cited by 2
Hazim, C., Coutinho, J., Crocker, J., Ásbjörnsdóttir, K., Cruz, M., Agostinho, M., Amaral, F., Cuembelo, M. D. F., Dinis, A., Fernandes, Q., et al. (2024) · JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · doi:10.1097/qai.0000000000003510 · Cited by 2
Eiraldi, R. B., Comly, R., Wolk, C. B., Rabenau-McDonnell, Q., McCurdy, B. L., Khanna, M. S., Jawad, A. F., Banks, J., Clark, S., Popkin, K. M., et al. (2024) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/26334895241279503 · Cited by 2
Deeds, B. G., Goldstein, A. B., & Blanco, C. (2024) · FOCUS The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.focus.20240019 · Cited by 2
Quesada-Stoner, A. C., Islam, M. S., Siječić, A., Malone, S. M., Puerto‐Torres, M., Cárdenas, A., Prewitt, K., Carreras, Y. A., Alvarez-Arellano, S. Y., Vargas, D. A., et al. (2024) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-024-00664-y · Cited by 2
Self-citationCasline, E. P., Patel, Z. S., Toranzo, T., Ramirez, V., & Jensen‐Doss, A. (2024) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.108001 · Cited by 2
Safaeinili, N., Chuang, E., Fleming, M. D., Ramanadhan, S., Pourat, N., & Brewster, A. L. (2024) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14418 · Cited by 3
Bartels, S. M., Nguyen, M. X., Trang, N. T., Sibley, A. L., Dang, H. N., Nong, H. T. T., Nguyen, T. K. N., Hà, T. V., Sripaipan, T., Powell, B. J., et al. (2025) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/26334895251319812 · Cited by 2
The State of Healthy Parenting in Primary Care Interventions in Advancing Health Equity
Damian, A. J., Bruner, C., Marks, I., Samudio, M., Schweer‐Collins, M. L., McCrae, J. S., Hails, K. A., Kuklinski, M. R., Wissow, L. S., Earls, M. F. E., et al. (2025) · NAM Perspectives · doi:10.31478/202503a · Cited by 2
Tsay, S., Chang, H.-C., Mu, P. F., Chou, P.-L., Yao, L. I. N., & Lin, J.-H. (2025) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000519 · Cited by 2
Schaafsma, J., ten Brug, A., & van der Putten, A. A. J. (2025) · Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · doi:10.1111/jar.70098 · Cited by 2
Siegle, A., zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein, F., & Roes, M. (2020) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-020-01033-8 · Cited by 2
Gesundheitsförderung im Reallabor?
Abu‐Omar, K., Popp, J., Bergmann, M., Messing, S., Till, M., & Gelius, P. C. (2023) · Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung · doi:10.1007/s11553-023-01023-w · Cited by 2
Nathan, N., Hall, A. E., Shoesmith, A., Bauman, A. E., Peden, B., Duggan, B., Gardner, C., Lane, C., Lecathelinais, C., Oldmeadow, C. J., et al. (2023) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16810-5 · Cited by 4
Bakri, N. N., Thomson, W. M., Broadbent, J. M., & Smith, M. (2025) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/daae198 · Cited by 2
Telerehabilitation of patients with stroke: Initial program theories for successful implementation
Hasan, M. M., Rafferty, M. R., Roth, E. J., Abunaser, S., Smith, J. D., Hirschhorn, L. R., & Woods, D. M. (2025) · PM&R · doi:10.1002/pmrj.13322 · Cited by 3
Herlitz, L., & Bonell, C. P. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1559954 · Cited by 2
Marshall, S. K., Love, P., Kuswara, K., Lee, K., Downes, H., & Laws, R. (2025) · Maternal and Child Nutrition · doi:10.1111/mcn.70046 · Cited by 2
Jackson‐Gordon, R., & Mennicke, A. M. (2025) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/08862605251343196 · Cited by 2
Obiezu‐Umeh, C., Subramaniam, D. S., Nwaozuru, U., Gbaja-Biamila, T. A., Blessing, L. A., Shato, T., Oladele, D. A., Hirschhorn, L. R., Shacham, E., Xian, H., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2025.1618400 · Cited by 2
Segar, S. G., Whitney, J. C., & Singh, D. K. A. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-25245-z · Cited by 2
How to Sustain and Spread Nutritional Care Improvements
Laur, C. V., & Bell, J. (2021) · Perspectives in nursing management and care for older adults · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63892-4_11 · Cited by 2
Implementacija pristupa temeljenog na dokazima učinkovitosti u prevencijskoj znanosti
Belošević, M., & Ferić, M. (2021) · Kriminologija & socijalna integracija : časopis za kriminologiju, penologiju i poremećaje u ponašanju · doi:10.31299/ksi.29.1.6 · Cited by 3
Ramsden, V., Middleton, S., McInnes, E., Babl, F. E., & Tavender, E. J. (2022) · Emergency Medicine Australasia · doi:10.1111/1742-6723.14052 · Cited by 3
Phelps, A. J., Lawrence‐Wood, E., Couineau, A., Hinton, M., Dolan, P., Smith, P., Notarianni, M., Forbes, D., & Hosseiny, F. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph191912681 · Cited by 2
Moucheraud, C., Epstein, A., Sarma, H., Kim, S. S., Nguyen, P. H., Rahman, M., Tariquijaman, M., Glenn, J. D., Payán, D. D., Menon, P., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2022.1005986 · Cited by 2
Beahm, J. D., McCall, H. C., Carleton, R. N., Jones, N. A., & Hadjistavropoulos, H. D. (2024) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2024.100718 · Cited by 2
Haroz, E. E., Ingalls, A., Sorby, K. D., Dozier, M., Kaye, M. P., Sarche, M. C., Supplee, L. H., Whitaker, D. J., Grubin, F., & Daro, D. A. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275981 · Cited by 2
Jacobi, C., Waldherr, K., Klesges, L. M., Dorner, T. E., & Taylor, C. B. (2019) · European Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz087 · Cited by 2
What fuels the research truck? Participatory health promotion research for sustainable change
Rod, M. H., Aagaard‐Hansen, J., Bauman, A. E., Jespersen, L. N., Tørslev, M. K., Vallis, M., & Willaing, I. (2022) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/daac052 · Cited by 2
Adapting Psychosocial Interventions Using Participatory Methods: Lessons Learned for Family Nursing
Deatrick, J. A. (2024) · Journal of Family Nursing · doi:10.1177/10748407241232091 · Cited by 2
Hall, S. F., Jones, A. S., & Maggiulli, L. (2022) · Human Services Organizations Management Leadership & Governance · doi:10.1080/23303131.2022.2062511 · Cited by 1
Perceptions of the Scope of Practice of Audiology
Criter, R. E., Sheperd, M., Northrup, D., & SHUSTER, L. I. (2023) · American Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1044/2023_aja-23-00027 · Cited by 1
Wendt, B., Nieuwboer, M. S., Vermeulen, H., Waal, G. H., & van Dulmen, S. A. (2024) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.16615 · Cited by 1
Ramsden, V., McInnes, E., Wilson, P. H., Babl, F. E., Kühn, L., Cowie, J., Campbell, P., Middleton, S., Wilson, C. L., Straiton, N., et al. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094174 · Cited by 2
Promoting the Sustainability of Suicide Prevention Projects in Switzerland
Werdin, S., Hollenstein, E., & Wyss, K. (2025) · Public health reviews · doi:10.3389/phrs.2025.1607824 · Cited by 1
Fowler, J., Cooley, M. E., Thompson, H., Vanderwill, L. A., & Day, A. (2025) · Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal · doi:10.1007/s10560-025-01013-1 · Cited by 1
van Schothorst, M. M. E., den Bleijker, N. M., van Harten, P. N., de Vries, N. K., & Deenik, J. (2025) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/26334895251351663 · Cited by 1
Coughlan, K., Fasugba, O., Dale, S., Hill, K. M., Cadilhac, D. A.-M., McInnes, E., & Middleton, S. (2025) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.70125 · Cited by 1
Surgical bundle sustainability in caesarean section births: An integrative review
Squires, B., van de Mortel, T., & Zimmerman, P.-A. P. (2025) · Infection Disease & Health · doi:10.1016/j.idh.2025.07.002 · Cited by 1
Sustained Use of an Evidence-Based Parenting Program in Portugal’s Child Protection System
Pinto, R., Canário, C., López, M. J. R., & Cruz, O. (2025) · Global Implementation Research and Applications · doi:10.1007/s43477-025-00183-5 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Shelton, R. C., Cooper, B. R., & Stirman, S. W.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Washington State University (US)
- National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Public Health
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2018-04-01
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-76
- ISSN
- 0163-7525 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2093
- OpenAlex
- W2783052600
- Semantic Scholar
- cecca204e8a2126b0f8915310c7371c7960ac74c
- Cited by
- 806
- References
- 144
- Citations by year
- 2026: 89 · 2025: 124 · 2024: 130 · 2023: 115 · 2022: 118 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 9
- FWCI
- 10.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Annual Review of Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Public Health Policies and Education
- Keywords
- intervention sustainability, evidence-based interventions, implementation science, research-practice gap, translational research, intervention adaptation, multilevel factors, public health programs, health interventions
- MeSH terms
- Implementation Science, Humans, Public Health, Research, Public Health Practice, Evidence-Based Practice, Capacity Building
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
