Skip to main content

Table 4 MMAT

From: A systematic review of empirical studies examining mechanisms of implementation in health

 Bardosh et al. 2017 [16]Brewster et al. 2015 [17]Carrera et al. 2015 [18]Frykman et al. 2014 [19]Wiener-Ogilvie et al. 2008 [20]Atkins et al. 2008 [21]Baer et al. 2009 [22]Bonetti et al. 2005 [23]Garner et al. 2011 [24]Glisson et al. 2010 [25]Holth et al. 2011 [26]Lee et al. 2018 [27]Lochman et al. 2009 [28]Rapkin et al. 2017 [29]Rohrbach et al. 1993 [30]Seys et al. 2018 [31]Williams et al. 2014 [32]Williams et al. 2017 [33]
1. Qualitative
Data sources relevant?YYYYYN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Data analysis process relevant?YYYYYN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Findings relate to context?YYYYYN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Findings relate to researchers' influence?NNNYNN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
2. Quantitative randomized
Clear description of the randomization?N/AN/AN/AN/AN/ANNYYNNYNYNYNY
Clear description of allocation or concealment?N/AN/AN/AN/AN/ANNNNYNNYNYNNN
Complete outcome data?N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AYYYYYYYYYNYNY
Low withdrawal/drop-out?N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AYYNYNNNYNYNYY
Total score (%)7575751007550505075502550755050502525
 Aarons et al. 2009 [34]Becker et al. 2016 [35]Beenstock et al. 2012 [36]Beets et al. 2008 [37]Bonetti et al. 2009 [38]Chou et al. 2011 [39]Cummings et al. 2017 [40]David and Schiff 2017 [41]Edmunds et al. 2014 [42]Gnich et al. 2018 [43]Guerrero et al. 2018 [44]Huis et al. 2013 [45]Little et al. 2015 [46]Llasus et al. 2014 [47]Nelson and Steele 2007 [48]Potthoff et al. 2017 [49]Presseau et al. 2016 [50]Simmonds et al. 2012 [51]Stockdale et al. 2018 [52]Wanless et al. 2015 [53]
3. Quantitative - non-randomized
Recruitment minimizes selection bias?YNNYYYNNYYYYYNYYYYYY
Measurements appropriate?YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Comparable groups or control for differences?YYYNNYNYYYYNYYYNYYYY
Complete outcome data, acceptable response rate, or acceptable follow-up rate?NNNNNNNYNNNYYNNNNYNN
Total score (%)755050505075257575757575100507550751007575
 Armson et al. 2018 [54]Birken et al. 2015 [55]Kauth et al. 2010 [56]Lukas et al. 2009 [57]Panzano et al. 2012 [58]Rangachari et al. 2015 [59]Shrubsole et al. 2018 [60]
1. Qualitative
Data sources relevant?YYYYYYY
Data analysis process relevant?YYYNNYY
Findings relate to context?YYYYYYY
Findings relate to researchers' influence?NNNNNNN
2. Quantitative randomized
Clear description of the randomization?N/AN/ANN/AN/AN/AY
Clear description of allocation or concealment?N/AN/ANN/AN/AN/AY
Complete outcome data?N/AN/AYN/AN/AN/AY
Low withdrawal/drop-out?N/AN/AYN/AN/AN/AN
3. Quantitative non-randomized
Recruitment minimizes selection bias?YYN/AYNYN/A
Measurements appropriate?YYN/AYYYN/A
Comparable groups or control for differences?NNN/ANNNN/A
Complete outcome data, acceptable response rate, or acceptable follow-up rate?YNN/ANYYN/A
4. Mixed methods
Research design relevant?YYYNNYY
Integration of qualitative and quantitative data relevant?YYYYYYY
Appropriate consideration given to limitations associated with integration?YYNNNNN
Total score (%)75505025257575