Cited by 18Health Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and Education

A Taxonomy for External Support for Practice Transformation

Open access
Solberg, Leif I., Kuzel, Anton, Parchman, Michael L., Shelley, Donna R., Dickinson, W. Perry, Walunas, Theresa L., Nguyen, Ann M., Fagnan, Lyle J. +11 more·2021·The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is no commonly accepted comprehensive framework for describing the practical specifics of external support for practice change. Our goal was to develop such a taxonomy that could be used by both external groups or researchers and health care leaders. METHODS: The leaders of 8 grants from Agency for Research and Quality for the EvidenceNOW study of improving cardiovascular preventive services in over 1500 primary care practices nationwide worked collaboratively over 18 months to develop descriptions of key domains that might comprehensively characterize any external support intervention. Combining literature reviews with our practical experiences in this initiative and past work, we aimed to define these domains and recommend measures for them. RESULTS: The taxonomy includes 1 domain to specify the conceptual model(s) on which an intervention is built and another to specify the types of support strategies used. Another 5 domains provide specifics about the dose/mode of that support, the types of change process and care process changes that are encouraged, and the degree to which the strategies are prescriptive and standardized. A model was created to illustrate how the domains fit together and how they would respond to practice needs and reactions. CONCLUSIONS: This taxonomy and its use in more consistently documenting and characterizing external support interventions should facilitate communication and synergies between 3 areas (quality improvement, practice change research, and implementation science) that have historically tended to work independently. The taxonomy was designed to be as useful for practices or health systems managing change as it is for 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 · 10.3122/jabfm.2021.01.200225

Cites

62 of 62 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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [1]Berwick DM. Continuous improvement as an ideal in health care. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 53– 6. 2909878
  2. [19]Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 21. 25889199 PMC4328074
  3. [27]Solberg LI, Glasgow RE, Unützer J, Partnership research: a practical trial design for evaluation of a natural experiment to improve depression care. Med Care 2010; 48: 576– 82. 20508531 PMC4270473
  4. [30]Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Powell BJ, From classification to causality: advancing understanding of mechanisms of change in implementation science. Front Public Health 2018; 6: 136. 29868544 PMC5949843

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Solberg, L. I., Kuzel, A., Parchman, M. L., Shelley, D. R., Dickinson, W. P., Walunas, T. L., Nguyen, A. M., Fagnan, L. J., Cykert, S., Cohen, D. J., Balasubramanaian, B. A., Fernald, D., Gordon, L., Kho, A., Krist, A., Miller, W., Berry, C., Duffy, D., & Nagykaldi, Z.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Published
2021-01
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
32-39
ISSN
  • 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7118
OpenAlex
W3119953308
Cited by
18
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002649)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18HS023912, R18 HS023908, R18 HS023913, R18 HS023904, R18 HS023919, R01 HS023940, R18 HS023922, R18HS023921)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
practice transformation, taxonomy (general classification scheme), quality improvement, implementation science, primary care practices
MeSH terms
Communication, Humans, Primary Health Care, Research Personnel, Quality Improvement

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