Cited by 1,108Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationDelphi Technique in Research

Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study

Open access
Waltz, Thomas J., Powell, Byron J., Matthieu, Monica M., Damschroder, Laura J., Chinman, Matthew J., Smith, Jeffrey L., Proctor, Enola K., Kirchner, JoAnn E.·2015·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Poor terminological consistency for core concepts in implementation science has been widely noted as an obstacle to effective meta-analyses. This inconsistency is also a barrier for those seeking guidance from the research literature when developing and planning implementation initiatives. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aims to address one area of terminological inconsistency: discrete implementation strategies involving one process or action used to support a practice change. The present report is on the second stage of the ERIC project that focuses on providing initial validation of the compilation of 73 implementation strategies that were identified in the first phase. FINDINGS: Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation science and clinical practice (N = 35). These key stakeholders used concept mapping sorting and rating activities to place the 73 implementation strategies into similar groups and to rate each strategy's relative importance and feasibility. Multidimensional scaling analysis provided a quantitative representation of the relationships among the strategies, all but one of which were found to be conceptually distinct from the others. Hierarchical cluster analysis supported organizing the 73 strategies into 9 categories. The ratings data reflect those strategies identified as the most important and feasible. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial validation of the implementation strategies within the ERIC compilation as being conceptually distinct. The categorization and strategy ratings of importance and feasibility may facilitate the search for, and selection of, strategies that are best suited for implementation efforts in a particular setting.

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/s13012-015-0295-0

Cites

19 of 19 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waltz, T. J., Powell, B. J., Matthieu, M. M., Damschroder, L. J., Chinman, M. J., Smith, J. L., Proctor, E. K., & Kirchner, J. E.
Affiliations
  • Eastern Michigan University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Waltz, Thomas J.
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2015-08-07
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
109-109
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2121795537
Cited by
1,108
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 156 · 2025: 164 · 2024: 217 · 2023: 164 · 2022: 121 · 2021: 109 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3
FWCI
38.00
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)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  • Purdue University
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Health Services Research and Development (QLP 55-025)
  • Harvard University
  • University of Minnesota (55-025)
  • Washington University in St. Louis
  • University of Washington
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
  • Fahs-Beck Fund for Research and Experimentation
  • University of Massachusetts Boston
  • University of Toronto
  • Quality Enhancement Research Initiative
  • University of California, Los Angeles
  • University of California, San Diego
  • VISN 4 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center
  • VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System
  • National Institute of Mental Health (F31MH098478)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK092926)
  • NIH Clinical Center
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
implementation strategies, concept mapping, Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change, terminology consistency, feasibility, importance ratings, expert validation, practice change
MeSH terms
Health Priorities, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Organizational Innovation, Program Evaluation, Program Development

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