↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2015
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
32 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
262 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
794 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
A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0005-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna C Moullin, Daniel Sabater-Hernández, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Shalom I Benrimoj

Abstract

Implementation science and knowledge translation have developed across multiple disciplines with the common aim of bringing innovations to practice. Numerous implementation frameworks, models, and theories have been developed to target a diverse array of innovations. As such, it is plausible that not all frameworks include the full range of concepts now thought to be involved in implementation. Users face the decision of selecting a single or combining multiple implementation frameworks. To aid this decision, the aim of this review was to assess the comprehensiveness of existing frameworks. A systematic search was undertaken in PubMed to identify implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare published from 2004 to May 2013. Additionally, titles and abstracts from Implementation Science journal and references from identified papers were reviewed. The orientation, type, and presence of stages and domains, along with the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of factors, strategies, and evaluations of implementation of included frameworks were analysed. Frameworks were assessed individually and grouped according to their targeted innovation. Frameworks for particular innovations had similar settings, end-users, and 'type' (descriptive, prescriptive, explanatory, or predictive). On the whole, frameworks were descriptive and explanatory more often than prescriptive and predictive. A small number of the reviewed frameworks covered an implementation concept(s) in detail, however, overall, there was limited degree and depth of analysis of implementation concepts. The core implementation concepts across the frameworks were collated to form a Generic Implementation Framework, which includes the process of implementation (often portrayed as a series of stages and/or steps), the innovation to be implemented, the context in which the implementation is to occur (divided into a range of domains), and influencing factors, strategies, and evaluations. The selection of implementation framework(s) should be based not solely on the healthcare innovation to be implemented, but include other aspects of the framework's orientation, e.g., the setting and end-user, as well as the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of the implementation concepts. The resulting generic structure provides researchers, policy-makers, health administrators, and practitioners a base that can be used as guidance for their implementation efforts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 794 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Unknown 780 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 134 17%
Student > Master 126 16%
Researcher 97 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 58 7%
Other 48 6%
Other 153 19%
Unknown 178 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 152 19%
Social Sciences 100 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 85 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 49 6%
Psychology 45 6%
Other 157 20%
Unknown 206 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 04 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,278,539
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#114
of 1,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,976
of 278,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,407 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 278,472 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.