A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022

Table 1 Study characteristics

	Total (n=129)	United States (n=56)	Non-U.S. (n=73)
Country (n, %)
United States (U.S.)	56 (43%)
Other Country^a	28 (22%)
Australia	18 (14%)
The Netherlands	14 (11%)
United Kingdom	7 (5%)
Canada^b	6 (5%)
Area of health or healthcare (n,%)^c
Primary care	46 (36%)	21 (36%)	25 (34%)
Public health	30 (23%)	12 (21%)	18 (25%)
Specialty care	27 (21%)	10 (18%)	17 (23%)
Mental health	11 (9%)	8 (14%)	3 (4%)
Other	18 (14%)	5 (9%)	13 (18%)
Setting (n, %)^c
Outpatient/clinic	64 (50%)	32 (57%)	32(44%)
Inpatient/hospital—floors	20 (15%)	4 (7%)	16 (22%)
School	13 (10%)	1 (2%)	12 (16%)
Community center	7 (5%)	5 (9%)	2 (3%)
Intensive Care Unit (ICU)	5 (5%)	1 (2%)	4 (5%)
Emergency/urgent care	3 (2%)	1 (2%)	2 (3%)
Home-based	1 (1%)	0 (0%)	1 (1%)
Other	29 (23%)	15 (58%)	14 (19%)
Number of sites, Median (IQR)	29 (12-49)	24 (12-47)	32 (12-55)
Number of participants, Median (IQR)	1,419 (306-5,957)	1,152 (239-4,040)	1,531 (365-7,279)
Implementation Strategies
Control Arm [mean (SD) range]	1.64 (2.86) 0-20	1.39 (2.30) 0-9	1.82 (3.23) 0-20
Experimental Arm [mean (SD) range]	8.33 (4.71) 1-21	8.66 (4.49) 1-20	8.07 (4.88) 1-21
Tested [mean (SD) range]	6.73 (4.45) 0-20	7.30 (4.46) 1-20	6.29 (4.43) 0-20
Outcome Assessed^d (n, %)
Reach	31 (24%)	12 (21%)	19 (26%)
Effectiveness	82 (64%)	31 (55%)	51 (70%)
Adoption	33 (26%)	13 (23%)	20 (27%)
Implementation	73 (56%)	29 (52%)	44 (60%)
Maintenance	40 (31%)	18 (32%)	22 (30%)
Positive outcome^e^,f (n, %)
Reach	18 (58%)	6 (50%)	12 (63%)
Effectiveness	44 (54%)	14 (45%)	30 (59%)
Adoption	24 (73%)	10 (77%)	14 (70%)
Implementation	54 (74%)	19 (66%)	35 (80%)
Maintenance	23 (58%)	9 (50%)	14 (64%)

^aOther Countries included: Sweden (n=4), Germany (n=4), France (n=3), Spain (n=2), Zimbabwe, Uganda, Switzerland, Portugal, Norway, Nigeria, Kenya, Japan, Finland, Denmark, The Bahamas, New Zealand and three multi-country studies: Senegal and Mali; Australia and New Zealand; and England, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Republic of Ireland.
^bOne study was conducted in both the U.S. and Canada with 7 sites in Canada and 1 U.S. site. This study was coded as being conducted in Canada
^cStudies could occur in more than one area of health/healthcare and setting. The denominator for reported percentages is the total number studies reviewed by column (Total N = 129; U.S. N = 56; Non-U.S. N = 73)).
^dThe denominator for reported percentages is the total number studies reviewed by column (Total N = 129; U.S. N = 56; Non-U.S. N = 73)); studies could assess more than one outcome
^eThe denominator for reported percentages is the total number studies reviewed by column (Total N = 129; U.S. N = 56; Non-U.S. N = 73));
^fStudies may have tested several measures of a RE-AIM outcome. The designation of “positive outcome” indicates studies with at least one measure of the RE-AIM outcome that reached statistical significance when comparing the Experimental to Control Arm. For example, if a study used several measures of Reach, the outcomes would be considered a positive outcome if at least one of those measures was statistically significant.

ISSN: 1748-5908