ArticleImplementation science : IS2026
Application status of the CFIR-ERIC matching tool in healthcare context: a scoping review.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe CFIR-ERIC matching tool, developed by Waltz et al. in 2019 to integrate implementation strategies with theoretical frameworks, enables rapid and targeted generation of implementation strategies in healthcare. However, no comprehensive synthesis of its application exists. This scoping review addresses this gap to inform tool optimization and implementation science advancement.
methodsFollowing the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched eight databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed) for studies applying the CFIR-ERIC matching tool in healthcare (April 29, 2019, to February 8, 2025). Data on application purpose, process, advantages, and limitations were extracted and analyzed via descriptive and content analysis.
resultsA total of 53 studies were included. The tool was mainly used to efficiently formulate targeted implementation strategies (51/53, 96.23%) and primarily applied in clinical intervention improvement (25/53, 47.17%). Regarding the tool's five-step application process, all 51 strategy-generating studies completed the first two steps (barrier identification and strategy generation), while only 50.98% (26/51) further adjusted, 15.69% (8/51) validated, and 7.84% (4/51) evaluated the generated strategies. Commonly reported advantages included providing a structured process for strategy matching (14/53, 26.42%) and references for generating targeted strategies (13/53, 24.53%). Key challenges were the need for context-specific adaptation (13/53, 24.53%) and inherent subjective bias from expert consensus reliance (9/53, 16.98%). Additionally, four studies (7.55%) proposed suggestions for tool refinements.
conclusionThis review is the first to map the CFIR-ERIC matching tool's application in healthcare, confirming its significant potential and notable strengths in implementation research. Although efforts to update and revise the tool remain limited, there are some approaches offer promising directions for optimization. Future research should focus on leveraging the tool's strengths while addressing its limitations to advance implementation science and improve global healthcare delivery efficiency and quality. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PE2QD .
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.