Cited by 67Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

A scoping review of classification schemes of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into practice in healthcare

Open access
Lokker, Cynthia, McKibbon, K Ann, Colquhoun, Heather, Hempel, Susanne·2015·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many models and frameworks are currently used to classify or describe knowledge translation interventions to promote and integrate evidence into practice in healthcare. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of intervention classifications in public health, clinical medicine, nursing, policy, behaviour science, improvement science and psychology research published to May 2013 by searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the grey literature. We used five stages to map the literature: identifying the research question; identifying relevant literature; study selection; charting the data; collating, summarizing, and reporting results. RESULTS: We identified 51 diverse classification schemes, including 23 taxonomies, 15 frameworks, 8 intervention lists, 3 models and 2 other formats. Most documents were public health based, 55% included a literature or document review, and 33% were theory based. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides an overview of schemes used to classify interventions which can be used for evaluation, comparison and validation of existing and emerging models. The collated taxonomies can guide authors in describing interventions; adequate descriptions of interventions will advance the science of knowledge translation in healthcare.

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/s13012-015-0220-6

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [16]Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. EPOC resources for review authors. 2012. http://epoc.cochrane.org. 2010. Accessed 4 May.
  2. [28]Abraham C Kok G Schaalma H Luszczynska A Martin PR Cheung FM Knowles MC Kyrios M Overmier JB Prieto JM Health promotion The International Association of Applied Psychology handbook of applied psychology 2011 Oxford Wiley-Blackwell
  3. [49]Shojania KG McDonald KM Wachter RM Owens DK Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies 2004 Rockville, MD Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 20734525

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lokker, C., McKibbon, K. A., Colquhoun, H., & Hempel, S.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
Corresponding author
Lokker, Cynthia
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2015-03-03
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
27-27
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119834512
Cited by
67
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.38
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)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
knowledge translation, intervention classification, classification systems, taxonomy (general classification scheme), framework, evidence-based practice, intervention description, public health interventions, nursing interventions, behaviour change interventions, improvement science
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Evidence-Based Medicine, Translational Research, Biomedical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

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