Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks

Abstract

BackgroundA recent review of frameworks used in dissemination and implementation (D&I) science described 61 judged to be related either to dissemination, implementation, or both. The current use of these frameworks and their contributions to D&I science more broadly has yet to be reviewed. For these reasons, our objective was to determine the role of these frameworks in the development of D&I science.MethodsWe used the Web of Science™ Core Collection and Google Scholar™ to conduct a citation network analysis for the key frameworks described in a recent systematic review of D&I frameworks (Am J Prev Med 43(3):337–350, 2012). From January to August 2016, we collected framework data including title, reference, publication year, and citations per year and conducted descriptive and main path network analyses to identify those most important in holding the current citation network for D&I frameworks together.ResultsThe source article contained 119 cited references, with 50 published articles and 11 documents identified as a primary framework reference. The average citations per year for the 61 frameworks reviewed ranged from 0.7 to 103.3 among articles published from 1985 to 2012. Citation rates from all frameworks are reported with citation network analyses for the framework review article and ten highly cited framework seed articles. The main path for the D&I framework citation network is presented.ConclusionsWe examined citation rates and the main paths through the citation network to delineate the current landscape of D&I framework research, and opportunities for advancing framework development and use. Dissemination and implementation researchers and practitioners may consider frequency of framework citation and our network findings when planning implementation efforts to build upon this foundation and promote systematic advances in D&I science.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0628-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks: a qualitative study to inform the development of a decision support tool

“…Similarly, we found that a lack of knowledge of and familiarity with existing implementation theories, models and frameworks, along with a lack of proper training on their use, were key individual/team-level barriers to selection. These knowledge and skills barriers were not surprising given the abundance of implementation theories, models and frameworks coupled with low citation rates in the literature, indicating they are not commonly used (2,12). Our study reaffirmed this finding by demonstrating that a group of implementation researchers and practitioners with high self-rated knowledge and experience generated a list of 28 theories, models, and frameworks, which represent less than 20% of those identified in a scoping review.…”

“…Despite a growing interest in the appropriate selection and use of implementation theories, models and frameworks (7)(8)(9)(10)(11), it can be difficult to sift through and make sense of the various options available -especially when most are used in practice only once or with limited justification (2,12). For instance, participants in an implementation practice training course (13) reported that they struggled to identify and select suitable theories, models or frameworks to guide their work.…”

Barriers to implementation of a healthy canteen policy: A survey using the theoretical domains framework

“…Forty‐six items assessed potential barriers via a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (Table ). Items are aligned to the 14 domains of the theoretical domains framework (TDF), one of the most used frameworks in implementation science . The TDF is a synthesis of 33 theories and 128 key theoretical constructs related to behaviour change, designed to assess implementation barriers and inform intervention design .…”

“…Items are aligned to the 14 domains of the theoretical domains framework (TDF), one of the most used frameworks in implementation science. 17 The TDF is a synthesis of 33 theories and 128 key theoretical constructs related to behaviour change, designed to assess implementation barriers and inform intervention design. 18 Domains contain between two and four items (Table 1) and were adapted to suit the study context from previously validated quantitative TDF surveys designed for barrier assessment.…”

Mapping the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: Greater than the Sum of the Parts

“…The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a determinant framework that provides a menu of constructs or determinants (potential barriers and facilitators to implementation) by which to assess and describe context [2][3]. It is among the most widely used implementation frameworks, which makes it a useful tool for reporting and referencing ndings across studies [4]. The Organizational Resource and Context Assessment (ORCA) was developed based on the Promoting Action Research into Health Services (PARiHS) framework and assesses PARiHS' three key domains of strength of evidence for a speci c EBI; the favorability of the organizational context for change; and capacities to facilitate the implementation of the EBI.…”