Evidence mapPaperPMID 37590193Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

Application of group model building in implementation research: A systematic review of the public health and healthcare literature.

Weanne Myrrh Estrada-Magbanua, Terry T-K Huang, David W Lounsbury, Priscila Zito, Pulwasha Iftikhar, Nabila El-Bassel, Louisa Gilbert, Elwin Wu, Bruce Y Lee, Pedro Mateu-Gelabert and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. BMJ open · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Systems approaches in public health: beyond mapping the causes.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025
    Review
  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.

Weanne Myrrh Estrada-MagbanuaCenter for Systems and Community Design and NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5615-6918
Terry T-K HuangCenter for Systems and Community Design and NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY, United States of America.
David W LounsburyDivision of Health Behavior Research and Implementation Science, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8539-4659
Priscila ZitoCenter for Systems and Community Design and NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY, United States of America.
Pulwasha IftikharCenter for Systems and Community Design and NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY, United States of America.
Nabila El-BasselSocial Intervention Group, School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America.
Louisa GilbertSocial Intervention Group, School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America.
Elwin WuSocial Intervention Group, School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America.
Bruce Y LeeCenter for Systems and Community Design and NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY, United States of America.
Pedro Mateu-GelabertCenter for Systems and Community Design and NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY, United States of America.
Nasim S SabounchiCenter for Systems and Community Design and NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY, United States of America.

Funding

NCCDPHP CDC HHS U13 DP000639NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP006391NIDA NIH HHS UM1 DA049415
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGroup model building is a process of engaging stakeholders in a participatory modeling process to elicit their perceptions of a problem and explore concepts regarding the origin, contributing factors, and potential solutions or interventions to a complex issue. Recently, it has emerged as a novel method for tackling complex, long-standing public health issues that traditional intervention models and frameworks cannot fully address. However, the extent to which group model building has resulted in the adoption of evidence-based practices, interventions, and policies for public health remains largely unstudied. The goal of this systematic review was to examine the public health and healthcare applications of GMB in the literature and outline how it has been used to foster implementation and dissemination of evidence-based interventions.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, and other databases through August 2022 for studies related to public health or health care where GMB was cited as a main methodology. We did not eliminate studies based on language, location, or date of publication. Three reviewers independently extracted data on GMB session characteristics, model attributes, and dissemination formats and content.

resultsSeventy-two studies were included in the final review. Majority of GMB activities were in the fields of nutrition (n = 19, 26.4%), health care administration (n = 15, 20.8%), and environmental health (n = 12, 16.7%), and were conducted in the United States (n = 29, 40.3%) and Australia (n = 7, 9.7%). Twenty-three (31.9%) studies reported that GMB influenced implementation through policy change, intervention development, and community action plans; less than a third reported dissemination of the model outside journal publication. GMB was reported to have increased insight, facilitated consensus, and fostered communication among stakeholders.

conclusionsGMB is associated with tangible benefits to participants, including increased community engagement and development of systems solutions. Transdisciplinary stakeholder involvement and more rigorous evaluation and dissemination of GMB activities are recommended.

Indexed as

CommunicationPublic HealthAustraliaConsensusDelivery of Health CareHumans

Identifiers

PMID37590193
PMCPMC10434911

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.