Cited by 54Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationHealth and Medical Research Impacts

How do researchers conceptualize and plan for the sustainability of their NIH R01 implementation projects?

Open access
Johnson, Alekhya Mascarenhas, Moore, Julia E., Chambers, David A., Rup, Jennifer, Dinyarian, Camellia, Straus, Sharon E.·2019·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inadequate sustainability of implementation of evidence-based interventions has led to calls for research on how sustainability can be optimized. To advance our understanding of intervention sustainability, we explored how implementation researchers conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of their implemented interventions with studies funded by the United States (US) National Institutes of Health (NIH). METHODS: We used sequential, mixed methods to explore how researchers conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of the health interventions using (1) a document review of all active and completed US NIH R01 Grants and Equivalents reviewed within the Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (DIRH) Study Section between 2004 and 2016 and (2) a qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews with NIH R01 DIRH grant recipients. RESULTS: We found 277 R01 profiles within the DIRH study section listed on the US NIH RePORTER website including 84 that were eligible for screening. Of the 84 unique projects, 76 (90.5%) had primary implementation outcomes. Of the 76 implementation project profiles, 51 (67.1%) made references to sustainability and none referred to sustainability planning. In both profiles and interviews, researchers conceptualized sustainability primarily as the continued delivery of interventions, programs, or implementation strategies. Few researchers referenced frameworks with sustainability constructs and offered limited information on how they operationalized frameworks. Researchers described broad categories of approaches and strategies to promote sustainability and key factors that may influence researchers to plan for sustainability, such as personal beliefs, self-efficacy, perception of their role, and the challenges of the grant funding system. CONCLUSIONS: We explored how US NIH R01 DIRH grant recipients conceptualized and planned for the sustainability of their interventions. Our results identified the need to test, consolidate, and provide guidance on how to operationalize sustainability frameworks, and to develop strategies on how funders and researchers can advance sustainability research.

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/s13012-019-0895-1

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Use of frameworks to explicitly guide hypothesis formation is the minority, even within implementation efforts using theory to guide other aspects of the research process.

    “Despite its explanatory power, use of frameworks to explicitly guide hypothesis formation are the minority, even within implementation efforts using theory to guide other aspects of the research process [38–40].”

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: 1

  1. [17]Dillman D Smyth J Christian L Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys 2009 3 Hoboken John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, A. M., Moore, J. E., Chambers, D. A., Rup, J., Dinyarian, C., & Straus, S. E.
Affiliations
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Straus, Sharon E.
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2019-05-09
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
50-50
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2946928234
Cited by
53
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 5
FWCI
10.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Health and Medical Research Impacts
Keywords
intervention sustainability, sustainability planning, implementation research, NIH R01 grants, dissemination and implementation research, research funding, sustainability framework, evidence-based interventions, grant recipients
MeSH terms
Implementation Science, Financing, Organized, Humans, Interviews as Topic, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Planning Techniques, Research Personnel, United States

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