Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35945548›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2022

A scoping review of frameworks in empirical studies and a review of dissemination frameworks.

Ana A Baumann, Cole Hooley, Emily Kryzer, Alexandra B Morshed, Cassidy A Gutner, Sara Malone, Callie Walsh-Bailey, Meagan Pilar, Brittney Sandler, Rachel G Tabak and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Participatory approach, dissemination, and implementation of research on aging: the Age-It experience.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ana A BaumannDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA. abaumannwalker@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4523-0147
Cole HooleySchool of Social Work, Brigham Young University, Provo, USA.
Emily KryzerBJC HealthCare, Community Health Improvement, St. Louis, USA.
Alexandra B MorshedRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, USA.
Cassidy A GutnerViiV Healthcare, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Sara MaloneBrown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.
Callie Walsh-BaileyBrown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.
Meagan PilarDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.
Brittney SandlerBernard Becker Medical Library, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.
Rachel G TabakBrown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.
Stephanie MazzuccaBrown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Washington University Center for Diabetes Translation Research P30DK092950 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Ross C Brownson, Debra Haire-Joshu · 2011 to 2026
$11.7M
Supplement: Implementation Research Strategies for Heart, Lung, and Blood Co-morbidities in People Living with HIV - Research Coordinating CenterU24HL154426 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DAVILA-ROMAN, VICTOR G., GENG, ELVIN H. · 2020 to 2024
$9.5M
Washington University Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control (WU-ISCCC)P50CA244431 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C, COLDITZ, GRAHAM A. · 2019 to 2023
$8.0M
The Implementation of Cognitive Screening and Educational Support to Improve Outcomes of Adolescents and Young Adults with Sickle Cell Disease: From Clinic to the Community and BackU01HL133994 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI KING, ALLISON A · 2016 to 2021
$5.2M
Training LEADers to Accelerate Global Mental Health Disparities in Research (LEAD)T37MD014218 · NIMHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI CAVAZOS-REHG, PATRICIA A, SSEWAMALA, FRED M · 2019 to 2023
$1.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR002345NCI NIH HHS P50CA244431NHLBI NIH HHS 5U01HL133994NHLBI NIH HHS U24HL154426NIDDK NIH HHS P30DK092950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) research has grown immensely in recent years. However, the field of dissemination research has not coalesced to the same degree as the field of implementation research. To advance the field of dissemination research, this review aimed to (1) identify the extent to which dissemination frameworks are used in dissemination empirical studies, (2) examine how scholars define dissemination, and (3) identify key constructs from dissemination frameworks.

methodsTo achieve aims 1 and 2, we conducted a scoping review of dissemination studies published in D&I science journals. The search strategy included manuscripts published from 1985 to 2020. Articles were included if they were empirical quantitative or mixed methods studies about the dissemination of information to a professional audience. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, commentaries or conceptual papers, scale-up or scale-out studies, qualitative or case studies, or descriptions of programs. To achieve aim 1, we compiled the frameworks identified in the empirical studies. To achieve aim 2, we compiled the definitions from dissemination from frameworks identified in aim 1 and from dissemination frameworks identified in a 2021 review (Tabak RG, Am J Prev Med 43:337-350, 2012). To achieve aim 3, we compile the constructs and their definitions from the frameworks.

findingsOut of 6017 studies, 89 studies were included for full-text extraction. Of these, 45 (51%) used a framework to guide the study. Across the 45 studies, 34 distinct frameworks were identified, out of which 13 (38%) defined dissemination. There is a lack of consensus on the definition of dissemination. Altogether, we identified 48 constructs, divided into 4 categories: process, determinants, strategies, and outcomes. Constructs in the frameworks are not well defined. IMPLICATION FOR D&I RESEARCH: This study provides a critical step in the dissemination research literature by offering suggestions on how to define dissemination research and by cataloging and defining dissemination constructs. Strengthening these definitions and distinctions between D&I research could enhance scientific reproducibility and advance the field of dissemination research.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceHumansReproducibility of ResultsDisseminationDissemination researchFrameworks

Identifiers

PMID35945548
PMCPMC9361268

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.