Cited by 252Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementation

Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations

Open access
Albrecht, Lauren, Archibald, Mandy, Arseneau, Danielle, Scott, Shannon D·2013·Implementation Science

Abstract

Background: Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions. Findings: The checklist was developed, applied, and improved over the course of four systematic reviews of knowledge translation (KT) strategies in a variety of healthcare settings conducted by Scott and associates. The checklist was created as one method of operationalizing the work of the WIDER in order to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies included in these systematic reviews. Numerous challenges were encountered in the process of creating and applying the checklist across four stages of development. The resulting improvements have produced a ‘user-friendly’ and replicable checklist to assess the quality of reporting of KT interventions in systematic reviews using the WIDER recommendations. Conclusions: With journals, such as Implementation Science, using the WIDER recommendations as publication requirements for evaluation reports of behavior change intervention studies, it is crucial to find methods of examining, measuring, and reporting the quality of reporting. This checklist is one approach to operationalize the WIDER recommendations in systematic review methodology.

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-8-52

Cites

10 of 11 references verified1 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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group Data collection checklist http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/datacollectionchecklist.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Albrecht, L., Archibald, M., Arseneau, D., & Scott, S. D.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Scott, Shannon D
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2013-05-16
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
52-52
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168880871
Cited by
252
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
19.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Alberta
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (102071_1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
knowledge translation intervention, behaviour change interventions, systematic review methodology, intervention development and evaluation
MeSH terms
Forecasting, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Program Development, Translational Research, Biomedical, Checklist

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