Measurement resources for dissemination and implementation research in health
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A 2-day consensus working meeting, hosted by the United States National Institutes of Health and the Veterans Administration, focused on issues related to dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in measurement and reporting. Meeting participants included 23 researchers, practitioners, and decision makers from the USA and Canada who concluded that the field would greatly benefit from measurement resources to enhance the ease, harmonization, and rigor of D&I evaluation efforts. This paper describes the findings from an environmental scan and literature review of resources for D&I measures. FINDINGS: We identified a total of 17 resources, including four web-based repositories and 12 static reviews or tools that attempted to synthesize and evaluate existing measures for D&I research. Thirteen resources came from the health discipline, and 11 were populated from database reviews. Ten focused on quantitative measures, and all were generated as a resource for researchers. Fourteen were organized according to an established D&I theory or framework, with the number of constructs and measures ranging from 1 to more than 450. Measure metadata was quite variable with only six providing information on the psychometric properties of measures. CONCLUSIONS: Additional guidance on the development and use of measures are needed. A number of approaches, resources, and critical areas for future work are discussed. Researchers and stakeholders are encouraged to take advantage of a number of funding mechanisms supporting this type of 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 lack of valid and pragmatic assessments for implementation-related factors and outcomes has been noted in the health services and implementation science literature and echoed by researchers across health-related interventions.
“Furthermore, the lack of valid and pragmatic assessments for implementation-related factors and outcomes has been noted in the health services and implementation science literature [110, 111] and has been echoed by researchers across health-related interventions [112].”
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 14 · Cited by 92
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [11]Hesse BW Technology-mediated social participation in health and healthcare Technology mediated social participation workshop 2010
- Authors
- Rabin, B. A., Lewis, C. C., Norton, W. E., Neta, G., Chambers, D., Tobin, J. N., Brownson, R. C., & Glasgow, R. E.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Clinical Directors Network (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rabin, Borsika A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2015-12
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 42-42
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4802882
- OpenAlex
- W2310539135
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 12.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health (R01MH106510)
- 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
- dissemination and implementation research, outcome measures, psychometric properties, health research evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Health Services Research, Information Services, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), United States, Consensus, Information Dissemination, 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