Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40022142›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2025

Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol.

Junqiang Zhao, Wenjun Chen, Wenhui Bai, Xiaoyan Zhang, Ruixue Hui, Sihan Chen, Guillaume Fontaine, Xiaolin Wei, Ning Zhang, Ian D Graham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Junqiang Zhao *Waypoint Research Institute, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, Penetanguishene, ON, Canada. jzhao@waypointcentre.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-3295-5106
Wenjun Chen *Xiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, China. xynursingcwj@csu.edu.cn.
Wenhui BaiHenan Renmin Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Xiaoyan ZhangBeijing Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ruixue HuiXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Sihan ChenSchool of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Guillaume FontaineIngram School of Nursing, Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada.
Xiaolin WeiDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ning ZhangSchool of Public Health, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Ian D GrahamOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch priority setting has the potential to bridge knowledge gaps, optimize resource allocation, foster collaborations, and inform funding directions for implementation science and practice when these priorities are properly acted upon. This systematic review aims to determine the extent of research in priority setting for implementation science and practice, examine the methodologies employed, synthesize these research priorities, and identify strategies for evaluating and implementing these priorities.

methodsWe will conduct a living systematic review following the Cochrane guidance. We will search literature from six databases, the website of James Lind Alliance, five implementation science-focused journals and several related journals, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers will independently screen studies based on the eligibility criteria. The characteristics of the included documents, their prioritization methods, and outcomes, as well as the evaluation and implementation strategies, will be extracted. We will critically appraise these documents using the nine common themes of good practice for research priority setting, and synthesize data using a narrative approach. We will re-run the search 12 months after the original search date to monitor the development of new literature and determine the time to update the review. DISCUSSIONS: By conducting this living systematic review, we will gain a comprehensive and dynamic understanding of the potential research gaps and hotspots in implementation science as perceived by researchers and practitioners. The findings of this review will inform the future research directions of implementation science and practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review has been registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/sr69k ).

Indexed as

Health PrioritiesImplementation ScienceResearchHumansResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicImplementation scienceKnowledge mobilizationLiving systematic reviewPriority settingResearch agenda

Identifiers

PMID40022142
PMCPMC11871763

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.