Cited by 54Health Policy Implementation ScienceMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementation

Correction: Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review

Open access
Proctor, Enola K., Bunger, Alicia C., Lengnick-Hall, Rebecca, Gerke, Donald R., Martin, Jared K., Phillips, Rebecca J., Swanson, Julia C.·2023·Implementation Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-023-01313-z

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Proctor, E. K., Bunger, A. C., Lengnick-Hall, R., Gerke, D. R., Martin, J. K., Phillips, R. J., & Swanson, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Western Oregon University (US)
Corresponding author
Proctor, Enola K.
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2023-10-25
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
53-53
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387949921
Cited by
53
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
implementation outcomes, implementation research, scoping review

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