Skip to main content

Table 2 Domains, constructs, and sub-constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [16] present in included studies evaluating rural cancer screening promotion programs in the United States

From: Assessing the use of constructs from the consolidated framework for implementation research in U.S. rural cancer screening promotion programs: a systematic search and scoping review

 

Study

Viadro, 1997 [20]

Sharp, 1998 [21]

Cunningham, 2000 [22]

Bencivenga, 2008 [23]

Teal, 2012 [24]

Norman, 2013 [25]

Lee-Lin, 2014 [26]

Breslau, 2015 [27]

Cardarelli, 2017 [28]

Gesthalter, 2017 [29]

Katz, 2017 [30]

Schlauderaff, 2017 [31]

Woodall, 2018 [32]

Tolma, 2019 [33]

Elliott, 2021 [34]

Studies reporting, n (%)

Intervention

 Intervention source

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

  

X

 

9 (60%)

 Evidence strength and quality

X

  

X

X

X

X

  

X

    

X

7 (47%)

 Relative advantage

   

X

X

X

X

X

  

X

    

6 (40%)

 Adaptability

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

 

13 (87%)

 Trialability

    

X

    

X

   

X

X

4 (27%)

 Complexity

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

   

X

X

11 (73%)

 Design quality and packaging

  

X

  

X

X

 

X

     

X

5 (33%)

 Cost

X

X

X

X

  

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

11 (73%)

Outer setting

 Patient needs and resources

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

12 (80%)

 Cosmopolitanism

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

13 (87%)

 Peer pressure

      

X

       

X

2 (13%)

 External policy and incentives

X

  

X

X

X

  

X

X

 

X

   

7 (47%)

Inner setting

 Structural characteristics

   

X

X

X

X

X

  

X

X

  

X

8 (53%)

 Networks and communications

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

 

X

11 (73%)

 Culture

 

X

  

X

  

X

       

3 (20%)

 Implementation climate

    

X

  

X

      

X

3 (20%)

 Tension for change

               

0 (0%)

 Compatibility

X

X

X

  

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

X

10 (67%)

 Relative priority

  

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

X

     

5 (33%)

 Organizational incentives and rewards

     

X

       

X

 

2 (13%)

 Goals and feedback

 

X

X

         

X

X

X

5 (33%)

 Learning climate

 

X

X

 

X

X

X

        

5 (33%)

 Readiness for implementation

    

X

   

X

    

X

 

3 (20%)

 Leadership engagement

 

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

10 (67%)

 Available resources

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

  

X

  

X

11 (73%)

 Access to knowledge and information

 

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

  

X

  

X

9 (60%)

Individuals

 Knowledge and beliefs about the intervention

     

X

X

  

X

 

X

X

 

X

6 (40%)

 Self-efficacy

               

0 (0%)

 Individual stage of change

         

X

     

1 (7%)

 Individual identification with organization

     

X

         

1 (7%)

 Other personal attributes

 

X

  

X

 

X

        

3 (20%)

Process

 Planning

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

15 (100%)

 Engaging

X

X

  

X

X

 

X

X

X

X

  

X

 

9 (60%)

 Opinion leader

               

0 (0%)

 Formally-appointed internal implementation leaders

X

 

X

 

X

X

   

X

 

X

  

X

7 (47%)

 Champions

X

    

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

   

6 (40%)

 External change agents

     

X

     

X

   

2 (13%)

 Executing

X

X

X

X

  

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

11 (73%)

 Reflecting and evaluating

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

13 (87%)

Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us