Skip to main content

Table 1 Implementation planning approaches for selecting and tailoring interventions

From: Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review

Implementation planning approach

Details about the planning approach

References

Total studies (n, % of studies using the approach)

Theories & frameworks used

25/118 (21.2%)

Process models

• Implementation of change model by Grol and Wensing [160]

[62, 67, 85, 86, 105]

5 (20%)

• Knowledge-to-Action Framework [161]

[58, 151]

2 (8%)

Determinant frameworks

• Theoretical Domains Framework [162]

[48, 68, 70, 74, 85, 105, 132]

7 (28%)

• Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [163]

[56, 137]

2 (8%)

• Promoting Action on Research Implementation (PARiHS) framework [164]

[74]

1 (4%)

Classic theories

• Social cognitive theories

[61, 62, 86, 93, 114, 135, 155]

7 (28%)

• Theory of reasoned action [165]

[56, 86, 117, 134, 152]

5 (20%)

• Theory of diffusion [166]

[68, 86, 135]

3 (12%)

Implementation theories

• Normalization process theory [167]

[85, 105]

2 (8%)

• Capability, opportunity, motivation—behavior (COM-B) model/behavior change wheel [168]

[52, 85, 103, 105, 132]

5 (20%)

Evaluation frameworks

• Reach, Effectives, Adoption, IMplementation (RE-AIM) framework [169]

[94]

1 (4%)

Barriers pre-identified

59/118 (50%)

Through the literature

[49, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60,61,62, 72, 73, 76, 87, 89, 95, 98, 99, 101, 102, 111, 116, 119, 121,122,123, 125, 131, 134, 147, 148, 151, 153, 156, 158]

33 (55.9%)

Surveys/questionnaires

[48, 56, 62, 67, 68, 70, 76, 78, 79, 89, 106, 107, 118, 123, 145, 151]

16 (27.1%)

Group discussions

[42, 45, 93, 103, 114, 118, 123, 132, 137, 141, 150]

11 (18.6%)

Interviews

[44, 48, 68, 70, 79, 89, 118, 123, 132, 144]

10 (16.9%)

Focus groups

[56, 62, 78, 97, 103, 116, 118, 123, 141]

9 (15.3%)

Observations

[76, 99, 103, 131, 141]

5 (8.5%)

Delphi technique

[86]

1 (1.7%)

Method not reported

[87, 93, 100, 119, 130, 151, 152]

7 (11.9%)

Intervention tailored to pre-identified barriers

38/118 (32.2%)

Behaviour change wheel [170]

[52, 85, 103, 105, 132]

5 (13.2%)

Method not reported

[42, 45, 56, 60, 62, 67, 68, 70, 76, 78, 79, 86, 89, 98, 100, 102, 106, 107, 111, 114, 116, 118, 119, 121, 123, 130, 131, 134, 137, 141, 151, 152, 158]

33 (86.8%)

Stakeholder engagement

42/118 (35.6%)

Co-design with professionals:

 

• Group discussions

[45, 52, 55, 58, 59, 65, 77, 84, 94, 97, 103, 119, 125, 128, 131, 132, 137, 141, 147, 149,150,151, 153]

23 (54.8%)

• Interviews

[79]

1 (2.4%)

• Focus groups

[99]

1 (2.4%)

• Method not reported

[42, 87, 102, 118, 127, 148, 158, 159]

8 (19%)

Co-design with professionals & patients

 

• Group discussions

[85, 89, 93, 123, 152]

5 (11.9%)

• Method not reported

[106, 126]

2 (4.8%)

Co-design with patients

 

• Group discussions

[98, 105]

2 (4.8%)

Back to article page

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908