Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40156017›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Implementing a new clinical service - what's your elevator pitch?

Ashvene Sureshkumar, Jillian Scandiffio, Dorothy Luong, Sarah Munce, Nanette Lai, Gregory Feng, Mark Bayley, Jiwon Oh, Monika Kastner, Andrea D Furlan and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

13 authors.

Ashvene SureshkumarRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Suite 160, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. ashvene.sureshkumar@mail.utoronto.ca.
Jillian ScandiffioSt. Michael'S Hospital- Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Dorothy LuongKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sarah MunceRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Suite 160, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Nanette LaiDepartment of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Gregory FengKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mark BayleyRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Suite 160, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Jiwon OhSt. Michael'S Hospital- Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Monika KastnerNorth York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Andrea D FurlanKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abhimanyu SudDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Anthony FeinsteinDepartment of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Robert SimpsonRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Suite 160, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) identify emotional well-being as a key unmet care need. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBI) can improve emotional well-being in PwMS; however, there is a lack of information on their implementation in routine care. Healthcare policy influencers may provide critical insight as to the implementation process. The aim of this study was to explore the needs and priorities of healthcare policy influencers for implementing MBIs for PwMS in Canada.

methodsA qualitative descriptive approach was adopted using semi-structured interviews with an inductive thematic analysis. Healthcare policy influencers (e.g., senior clinical leaders, provisional health service commissioners, healthcare policymakers) in various settings across Ontario were recruited.

resultsTwelve individuals with an average age of 51.1 ± 8.9 years participated in the semi-structured interviews. Interviews ranged from 12 to 60 min. Four themes were identified in thematic analysis: (1) Need for evidence with a personal connection is foundational; (2) People Power: Need for Implementation champions; (3) Finding its place: Need for embedding interventions into existing systems; and (4) Sustainability: Need for focus on long-term impact.

conclusionOur study provides novel insight into complex factors which affect implementation of new interventions, such as MBIs for PwMS, into the healthcare landscape in Ontario. Six key steps were identified for implementors to consider when seeking to implement a new intervention: (1) identify the problem and the need for intervention, (2) establish evidence highlighting evidence of effectiveness for an intervention, (3) build a team of implementation champions, (4) pilot the novel intervention to establish proof of concept, feasibility, and ecological integration within current landscape, (5) identify decision makers for intervention implementation, and (6) develop an 'elevator pitch' for decision makers. The implementation process is convoluted and can lack clarity. This is a major challenge for implementers. We have identified six key steps for implementers to consider, making this process more transparent and hopefully more successful. Future research should explore, test, and bridge the gaps in the implementation pathway we have identified, as this may be critical in closing the gaps that exist in our healthcare systems.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisAdultFemaleHealth PolicyHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedOntarioQualitative ResearchHealthcare policyMindfulnessMultiple sclerosisPolicyQualitative

Identifiers

PMID40156017
PMCPMC11951556

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.