Table 2 Summary of findings from included papers
Author and year | No. of papers | Measurement tools | Healthcare setting | Implementation framework | Search strategy | Location of studies | Psychometric measure | Usability measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Khadjesari et al. (2020) [12] | 58 | 55 Acceptability n = 33 Appropriateness n = 7 Adoption n = 4 Feasibility n = 4 Penetration n = 4 Sustainability n = 3 | Physical health (not specified whether primary, tertiary etc.) | Proctor’s taxonomy of outcomes | 3 sets of search terms 1) Implementation literature 2) implementation outcomes from Proctor 3) measurement properties of the instruments | Predominately high-income countries, majority from USA (N = 22) | COSMIN and ConPsy | Usability Scale |
Mettert et al. (2020) [13] | 83 | 102 Acceptability n = 32 Adoption n = 24 Appropriateness n = 6 Feasibility n = 18 Fidelity n = 18 Penetration n = 9 Sustainability n = 13 | Mental and behaviour health, predominately in the outpatient community setting and half covered general mental health or substance abuse.- | Proctor’s taxonomy of outcomes | 4 core levels for search terms. 1) terms for implementation. 2) terms for measurement. 3) terms for evidence-based practice. 4) terms for behavioural health. A 5th layer was added for the Proctor et al. taxonomy of outcomes | 86% were from the USA (n = 85), with the remaining predominately high-income countries | PAPERS (Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale) | This was not measured. PAPERS does have usability measures, but these were not used in this study |
Clinton-McHarg et al. (2016) [24] | 65 | 51 These were mapped to the CFIR constructs, most frequently measured were: relative advantage, networks and communication, culture and implementation climate | Public Health, including education facilities, nursing homes, pharmacies, workplaces and broader community settings | Consolidated Framework of implementation research (CFIR) | The core search terms comprised of 1) terms for measurement. 2) terms for psychometric properties 3) the levels at which the measurement could occur, 4) the goals of research implementation, 5) the CFIR constructs | Predominately from the USA, (n = 28), with Canada and Australia also named. No further breakdown of countries | Criteria based on the Standards of Educational and Psychological Testing | Not measured |
McLoughlin et al. (2021) [22] | 67 | 86 n = 23 were classed as ‘large-scale tools’ (widely used and/or based on national samples), n = 63 were ‘unique tools’ – less frequently reported measures with smaller sample sizes. Top 5 constructs measured: Fidelity (n = 70) Actor relationships n = 45 Non-training resources n = 43 Leadership for implementation n = 42 Communication of policy n = 41 Many of the tools measured more than one outcome/determinant | School Health Policy. Most common topic was general wellness policy, followed by nutrition and physical activity | Proctor’s taxonomy CFIR Policy Implementation Determinants Framework | Terms based on 4 domains. 1) health, 2) public policy, 3) implementation, 4) measurement. Development of the search strings was based on implementation frameworks and policy research | 69% were from the USA (N = 69) with a further 24.3% from Canada, Australia or Europe. The remaining countries were high or middle income | PAPERS | PAPERS, including brevity, cost, training, interpretation and readability |
Allen et al. (2020) [21] | 66 | 70 Top 5 constructs measured: Readiness for implementation 61% Organisational culture 23% Fidelity 26% Acceptability 24% Feasibility 17% Many of the tools measured more than one outcome/determinant. Of the 70, n = 38 were deemed mostly or partially transferrable to any health issue. Only the 38 were fully analysed | Health policy. The most common topics are mental health, general healthcare, schools and tobacco | Proctor’s taxonomy CFIR Policy Implementation Determinants Framework | Terms based on 4 domains. 1) health, 2) public policy, 3) implementation, 4) measurement Development of the search strings was based on policy implementation framework reviews and definitions of the included implementation outcomes | Full breakdown was not available for the 70. Of the 38 looked at in detail, n = 30 were from USA or Europe with the remaining tools used across the world, income status not listed | PAPERS | PAPERS, including brevity, cost, training, interpretation and readability |