A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
By M. Kirk, Caitlin Kelley, Nicholas Yankey, Sarah A. Birken, Brenton G. Abadie, Laura J. Damschroder. Implementation Science, 2015
1,130 citations recorded by the source corpus.
BackgroundIn 2009, Damschroder et al. developed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which provides a comprehensive listing of constructs thought to influence implementation. This systematic review assesses the extent to which the CFIR’s use in implementation research fulfills goals set forth by Damschroder et al. in terms of breadth of use, depth of application, and contribution to implementation research.MethodsWe searched Scopus and Web of Science for publications that cited the original CFIR publication by Damschroder et al. (Implement Sci 4:50, 2009) and downloaded each unique result for review. After applying exclusion criteria, the final articles were empirical studies published in peer-review journals that used the CFIR in a meaningful way (i.e., used the CFIR to guide data collection, measurement, coding, analysis, and/or reporting). A framework analysis approach was used to guide abstraction and synthesis of the included articles.ResultsTwenty-six of 429 unique articles (6 %) met inclusion criteria. We found great breadth in CFIR application; the CFIR was applied across a wide variety of study objectives, settings, and units of analysis. There was also variation in the method of included studies (mixed methods (n = 13); qualitative (n = 10); quantitative (n = 3)). Depth of CFIR application revealed some areas for improvement. Few studies (n = 3) reported justification for selection of CFIR constructs used; the majority of studies (n = 14) used the CFIR to guide data analysis only; and few studies investigated any outcomes (n = 11). Finally, reflections on the contribution of the CFIR to implementation research were scarce.ConclusionsOur results indicate that the CFIR has been used across a wide range of studies, though more in-depth use of the CFIR may help advance implementation science. To harness its potential, researchers should consider how to most meaningfully use the CFIR. Specific recommendations for applying the CFIR include explicitly justifying selection of CFIR constructs; integrating the CFIR throughout the research process (in study design, data collection, and analysis); and appropriately using the CFIR given the phase of implementation of the research (e.g., if the research is post-implementation, using the CFIR to link determinants of implementation to outcomes).
Subfields: General Health Professions, Management Science and Operations Research, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c8757b9931f0128e029ff09f1d76564f0b0c686b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Health Professions
In Management Science and Operations Research
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- Clarity out of chaos: Use of theory in implementation research. (2020, background): “Since the time of their publication, other researchers adapted and refined the model for use in health care (Damschroder et al., 2011; Helfrich et al., 2010, 2007; Kirk et al., 2016).”
- Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration (2019, methodology): “Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science.”
- The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback (2022, methodology): “’s 2015 review of 26 articles with meaningful use of the CFIR found that most users employed mixed (n = 13) or qualitative (n = 10) methods and used the CFIR in the post-implementation phase (n = 15) [13].”