Evaluation of measures of sustainability and sustainability determinants for use in community, public health, and clinical settings: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Background: Sustainability is concerned with the long-term delivery and subsequent benefits of evidence-based interventions. To further this field, we require a strong understanding and thus measurement of sustainability and what impacts sustainability (i.e., sustainability determinants). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality and empirical application of measures of sustainability and sustainability determinants for use in clinical, public health, and community settings. Methods: Seven electronic databases, reference lists of relevant reviews, online repositories of implementation measures, and the grey literature were searched. Publications were included if they reported on the development, psychometric evaluation, or empirical use of a multi-item, quantitative measure of sustainability, or sustainability determinants. Eligibility was not restricted by language or date. Eligibility screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two members of the research team. Content coverage of each measure was assessed by mapping measure items to relevant constructs of sustainability and sustainability determinants. The pragmatic and psychometric properties of included measures was assessed using the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS). The empirical use of each measure was descriptively analyzed. Results: A total of 32,782 articles were screened from the database search, of which 37 were eligible. An additional 186 publications were identified from the grey literature search. The 223 included articles represented 28 individual measures, of which two assessed sustainability as an outcome, 25 covered sustainability determinants and one explicitly assessed both. The psychometric and pragmatic quality was variable, with PAPERS scores ranging from 14 to 35, out of a possible 56 points. The Provider Report of Sustainment Scale had the highest PAPERS score and measured sustainability as an outcome. The School-wide Universal Behaviour Sustainability Index-School Teams had the highest PAPERS score (score=29) of the measure of sustainability determinants. Conclusions: This review can be used to guide selection of the most psychometrically robust, pragmatic, and relevant measure of sustainability and sustainability determinants. It also highlights that future research is needed to improve the psychometric and pragmatic quality of current measures in this field. Trial registration: This review was prospectively registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1097), March 2021.
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 short versions facilitate measurement of sustainability capacity in research, evaluation, and practice settings.
“reduce the burden of assessment and facilitate measurement of sustainability capacity in research, evaluation, and practice setting [5, 17, 18, 22].”
From Lowering the burden: Shorter versions of the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT) and Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT) (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
The Introduction says the review provides guidance for selecting sustainability measures, and the Discussion > Limitations describes quantitative measures as an efficient way to measure sustainability and its determinants. The Results > Psychometric and pragmatic qualities lists short versions, but the paper does not establish that those versions specifically facilitate measurement of sustainability capacity across research, evaluation, and practice settings. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere are still relatively few established measurement tools for assessing sustainability and sustainment.
“Despite this increased attention, there are still relatively few established measurement tools for assessing sustainability and sustainment [4, 5].”
From Lowering the burden: Shorter versions of the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT) and Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT) (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
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 71 · Cited by 81
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [30]Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org.
- [54]May CR Finch T Ballini L MacFarlane A Mair F Murray E Evaluating complex interventions and health technologies using normalization process theory: development of a simplified approach and web-enabled toolkit BMC Health Serv Res 2011 11 1 1 11 21961827 PMC3205031
- [81]Saldana L, editor Operationalizing sustainment activities for two evidence-based practices using the stages of implementation completion (SIC). 11 th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation; 2018: AcademyHealth.
- Authors
- Hall, A., Shoesmith, A., Doherty, E., McEvoy, B., Mettert, K., Lewis, C. C., Wolfenden, L., Yoong, S., Kingsland, M., Shelton, R. C., Wiltsey Stirman, S., Imad, N., Sutherland, R., & Nathan, N.
- Affiliations
- Hunter Medical Research Institute (AU)
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- Hunter New England Local Health District (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Hall, Alix
- ORCID
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2022-12-13
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 81-81
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9746194
- OpenAlex
- W4311361890
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18
- FWCI
- 3.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1194785, APP1153479)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- sustainability, sustainability determinants, sustainability measures, psychometric properties, implementation outcomes, community settings, public health settings, clinical settings
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Psychometrics, Public Health
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