Cited by 128Health Policy Implementation ScienceDelphi Technique in ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Developing standards for reporting implementation studies of complex interventions (StaRI): a systematic review and e-Delphi

Open access
Pinnock, Hilary, Epiphaniou, Eleni, Sheikh, Aziz, Griffiths, Chris, Eldridge, Sandra, Craig, Peter, Taylor, Stephanie JC·2015·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dissemination and implementation of health care interventions are currently hampered by the variable quality of reporting of implementation research. Reporting of other study types has been improved by the introduction of reporting standards (e.g. CONSORT). We are therefore developing guidelines for reporting implementation studies (StaRI). METHODS: Using established methodology for developing health research reporting guidelines, we systematically reviewed the literature to generate items for a checklist of reporting standards. We then recruited an international, multidisciplinary panel for an e-Delphi consensus-building exercise which comprised an initial open round to revise/suggest a list of potential items for scoring in the subsequent two scoring rounds (scale 1 to 9). Consensus was defined a priori as 80% agreement with the priority scores of 7, 8, or 9. RESULTS: We identified eight papers from the literature review from which we derived 36 potential items. We recruited 23 experts to the e-Delphi panel. Open round comments resulted in revisions, and 47 items went forward to the scoring rounds. Thirty-five items achieved consensus: 19 achieved 100% agreement. Prioritised items addressed the need to: provide an evidence-based justification for implementation; describe the setting, professional/service requirements, eligible population and intervention in detail; measure process and clinical outcomes at population level (using routine data); report impact on health care resources; describe local adaptations to the implementation strategy and describe barriers/facilitators. Over-arching themes from the free-text comments included balancing the need for detailed descriptions of interventions with publishing constraints, addressing the dual aims of reporting on the process of implementation and effectiveness of the intervention and monitoring fidelity to an intervention whilst encouraging adaptation to suit diverse local contexts. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified priority items for reporting implementation studies and key issues for further discussion. An international, multidisciplinary workshop, where participants will debate the issues raised, clarify specific items and develop StaRI standards that fit within the suite of EQUATOR reporting guidelines, is planned. REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered with Equator: http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#17 .

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/s13012-015-0235-z

Cites

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?

  • The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies and Neta et al. reporting framework emphasize how critical it is to report on the multilevel context of implementation.

    “Though not specific to the reporting of implementation strategies, the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (101) and Neta et al. (102) reporting framework emphasizes how critical it is to report on the multilevel context of implementation.”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 42 · Cited by 128

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [3]Bhattacharyya O Reeves S Zwarenstein M What is implementation research? Rationale, concepts, and practices Res Social Work Prac. 2009 19 491 502 10.1177/1049731509335528 · DOI
  2. [17]Moher D Jones A Lepage L Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation JAMA. 2001 285 1992 5 10.1001/jama.285.15.1992 11308436 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [22]Pinnock H, Taylor S, Epiphaniou E, Sheikh A, Griffiths C, Eldridge S, et al. Developing standards for reporting phase IV implementation studies. [ http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Proposal-for-reporting-guidelines-of-Implementation-Research-StaRI.pdf] PMC4393562 25888928
  4. [40]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 [ https://www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG9/chapter/Foreword] 27905712

Authors
Pinnock, H., Epiphaniou, E., Sheikh, A., Griffiths, C., Eldridge, S., Craig, P., & Taylor, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Pinnock, Hilary
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2015-03-30
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
42-42
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997318649
Cited by
128
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6
FWCI
2.69
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)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Queen Mary University of London
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (11/1014/04)
  • Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/15)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
reporting guidelines, implementation research, complex interventions, e-Delphi consensus, reporting checklist, barriers and facilitators, fidelity monitoring, local adaptation, health care utilization, EQUATOR Network
MeSH terms
Delphi Technique, Diffusion of Innovation, Health Services Research, Humans, Program Development, 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