↓ Skip to main content

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to produce actionable findings: a rapid-cycle evaluation approach to improving implementation

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
64 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
232 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
750 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to produce actionable findings: a rapid-cycle evaluation approach to improving implementation
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0550-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosalind E. Keith, Jesse C. Crosson, Ann S. O’Malley, DeAnn Cromp, Erin Fries Taylor

Abstract

Much research does not address the practical needs of stakeholders responsible for introducing health care delivery interventions into organizations working to achieve better outcomes. In this article, we present an approach to using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide systematic research that supports rapid-cycle evaluation of the implementation of health care delivery interventions and produces actionable evaluation findings intended to improve implementation in a timely manner. To present our approach, we describe a formative cross-case qualitative investigation of 21 primary care practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative, a multi-payer supported primary care practice transformation intervention led by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Qualitative data include observational field notes and semi-structured interviews with primary care practice leadership, clinicians, and administrative and medical support staff. We use intervention-specific codes, and CFIR constructs to reduce and organize the data to support cross-case analysis of patterns of barriers and facilitators relating to different CPC components. Using the CFIR to guide data collection, coding, analysis, and reporting of findings supported a systematic, comprehensive, and timely understanding of barriers and facilitators to practice transformation. Our approach to using the CFIR produced actionable findings for improving implementation effectiveness during this initiative and for identifying improvements to implementation strategies for future practice transformation efforts. The CFIR is a useful tool for guiding rapid-cycle evaluation of the implementation of practice transformation initiatives. Using the approach described here, we systematically identified where adjustments and refinements to the intervention could be made in the second year of the 4-year intervention. We think the approach we describe has broad application and encourage others to use the CFIR, along with intervention-specific codes, to guide the efficient and rigorous analysis of rich qualitative data. NCT02318108.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 750 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 746 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 148 20%
Student > Master 124 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 107 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 59 8%
Other 36 5%
Other 134 18%
Unknown 142 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 180 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 120 16%
Social Sciences 94 13%
Psychology 45 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 2%
Other 107 14%
Unknown 190 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2021.
All research outputs
#746,260
of 21,140,081 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#125
of 1,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,475
of 392,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,140,081 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 392,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them