ArticleFrontiers in health services2025
Using end user feedback to specify an adaptive implementation strategy.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Adaptive implementation strategies tailor support to setting needs rather than applying a uniform approach. These strategies improve efficiency and fit, yet practical guidance on identifying decision points and tailoring variables is limited. This study collected end-user and partner input to specify decision points and tailoring variables for an adaptive implementation strategy. Methods: This study focused on the evidence-based nutrition program, Together, We Inspire Smart Eating (WISE). End users and implementation partners with prior experience in WISE were recruited in two states to participate in semi-structured interviews or focus groups designed to elicit feedback to specify an adaptive implementation strategy for WISE. Results: Qualitative input supported three crucial decisions for an adaptive implementation strategy: (1) low-intensity support, the starting point for all sites, will include leadership commitments, local champions, an implementation blueprint, classroom reminders, and task-focused facilitation at the site level; (2) assessment of response to low-intensity support will occur in October (Month 3) of the school year; and (3) sites not responding by Month 3 will receive holistic facilitation and tailored educational materials at the teacher level. Participants emphasized the universal need for facilitation at all sites, with struggling sites requiring more. They also identified tailoring variables: sites with fewer than 60% of classrooms achieving fidelity would require high-intensity support. Conclusions: This study illustrates a process for using feedback from end users and partners to define key elements of an adaptive implementation strategy. Our approach holds significant potential to specify strategies for scaling health-related evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.