Cited by 429Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationDelphi Technique in Research

Sustainability of evidence-based healthcare: research agenda, methodological advances, and infrastructure support

Open access
Proctor, Enola, Luke, Douglas, Calhoun, Annaliese, McMillen, Curtis, Brownson, Ross, McCrary, Stacey, Padek, Margaret·2015·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how well or under what conditions health innovations are sustained and their gains maintained once they are put into practice. Implementation science typically focuses on uptake by early adopters of one healthcare innovation at a time. The later-stage challenges of scaling up and sustaining evidence-supported interventions receive too little attention. This project identifies the challenges associated with sustainability research and generates recommendations for accelerating and strengthening this work. METHODS: A multi-method, multi-stage approach, was used: (1) identifying and recruiting experts in sustainability as participants, (2) conducting research on sustainability using concept mapping, (3) action planning during an intensive working conference of sustainability experts to expand the concept mapping quantitative results, and (4) consolidating results into a set of recommendations for research, methodological advances, and infrastructure building to advance understanding of sustainability. Participants comprised researchers, funders, and leaders in health, mental health, and public health with shared interest in the sustainability of evidence-based health care. RESULTS: Prompted to identify important issues for sustainability research, participants generated 91 distinct statements, for which a concept mapping process produced 11 conceptually distinct clusters. During the conference, participants built upon the concept mapping clusters to generate recommendations for sustainability research. The recommendations fell into three domains: (1) pursue high priority research questions as a unified agenda on sustainability; (2) advance methods for sustainability research; (3) advance infrastructure to support sustainability research. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science needs to pursue later-stage translation research questions required for population impact. Priorities include conceptual consistency and operational clarity for measuring sustainability, developing evidence about the value of sustaining interventions over time, identifying correlates of sustainability along with strategies for sustaining evidence-supported interventions, advancing the theoretical base and research designs for sustainability research, and advancing the workforce capacity, research culture, and funding mechanisms for this important work.

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/s13012-015-0274-5

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • 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, especially those guided by established sustainment frameworks and measurement tools.

    “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].”

    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 [59]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Experts have prioritized sustainability as an understudied area and identified it as one of the most significant translational research problems of our time.

    “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.”

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: 2

  1. [29]AHRQ 2010 Annual Conference. Better care, better health: delivering on quality for all Americans. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010. http://archive.ahrq.gov/news/events/conference/2010/.
  2. [37]Edwards N. Scaling-up health innovations and interventions in public health: a brief review of the current state-of-the-science. Conference to Advance the State of the Science and Practice on Scale-up and Spread of Effective Health Programs; 2010. p. 1–45

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Proctor, E., Luke, D., Calhoun, A., McMillen, C., Brownson, R., McCrary, S., & Padek, M.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Bridgespan Group (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Proctor, Enola
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2015-06-11
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
88-88
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1509030728
Cited by
429
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5
FWCI
35.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Washington University in St. Louis
  • National Institutes of Health (5p30mh068579-05, CA155496, RR024992, UL1‐RR024992)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1R13HS020775, R13HS020775)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P30-MH-068579, R25MH080916)
  • National Cancer Institute (U54CA155496, THI1 U54 CA155496-01)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024992)
  • Center for Mental Health Services
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
intervention sustainability, evidence-based care, scale-up, research agenda, sustainability measurement, research infrastructure, research funding, concept mapping, action planning
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Program Evaluation, Program Development, Evidence-Based Practice, 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