Christopher M. Shea

TL;DR: Although ORIC shows promise, further assessment is needed to test for convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity, and it is believed this measure will enable testing of theories about determinants and consequences of organizational readiness and, ultimately, assist healthcare leaders to reduce the number of health organization change efforts that do not achieve desired benefits.

TL;DR: A system for classifying implementation strategies that builds on Proctor and colleagues’ (2013) reporting guidelines, which recommend that authors not only name and define their implementation strategies but also specify who enacted the strategy and the level and determinants that were targeted, is offered.

TL;DR: The results suggest that the selection of implementation theories is often haphazard or driven by convenience or prior exposure, and variation in approaches to selecting theory warn against prescriptive guidance for theory selection.

TL;DR: A systematic review of studies that mentioned both the CFIR and the TDF, were written in English, were peer-reviewed, and reported either a protocol or results of an empirical study in MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, or Google Scholar was undertaken.

TL;DR: This approach allows for identifying discrete implementation strategies used over time, estimating dose, describing temporal ordering of implementation strategies, and pinpointing the major implementation actors, which could lead to a more nuanced understanding of what it takes to implement different innovations.