Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Advancing the selection of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks: a scoping review and the development of the SELECT-IT meta-framework
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Advancing the selection of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks: a scoping review and the development of the SELECT-IT meta-framework
Do you wish to request the book?
Advancing the selection of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks: a scoping review and the development of the SELECT-IT meta-framework
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Advancing the selection of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks: a scoping review and the development of the SELECT-IT meta-framework
2025
Overview
Background
Theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) are central to implementation practice and research. Selecting one or more TMF(s) for a project remains challenging due to numerous options and limited guidance. This study aimed to (1) identify and categorize the reported purposes and attributes of TMFs, as well as the practical considerations of TMF users, and (2) synthesize these findings into a meta-framework that supports implementation practitioners and researchers in selecting TMFs.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Medline, Embase, and CINAHL were searched to identify articles on the selection of TMFs. Articles were selected and data extracted using Covidence. Inductive thematic analysis was used to refine and categorize purposes, attributes and practical considerations. The meta-framework was developed by mapping these categories onto a sequential process, pilot-testing through case studies, and iteratively refining it based on team feedback.
Results
Of 9,276 records, 43 articles (2005–2024) were included. Most articles reported TMF purposes (41 articles), followed by attributes (30) and practical considerations (13). Seven distinct purposes were identified: (1) enhancing conceptual clarity, (2) anticipating change and guiding inquiry, (3) guiding the implementation process, (4) guiding identification of determinants, (5) guiding design and adaptation of strategies, (6) guiding evaluation and causal explanation, and (7) guiding interpretation and dissemination. Additionally, 24 TMF attributes were grouped into five domains: clarity and structure, scientific strength and evidence, applicability and usability, equity and sociocultural responsiveness, and system and partner integration. Ten practical considerations were grouped into three domains: team expertise and readiness, resource availability, and project fit. These findings informed the development of the
S
ystematic
E
valuation and Se
lect
ion of
I
mplementation Science
T
heories, Models and Frameworks (SELECT-IT) meta-framework, comprising four steps: (1) determine the purpose(s) of using TMF(s); (2) identify potential TMFs; (3) evaluate short-listed TMFs against attributes; and (4) assess practical considerations of using TMF(s) within the project context. A worked example and two user-friendly worksheets illustrate its utility.
Conclusions
This study advances understanding of the selection of implementation science TMFs by distinguishing inherent TMF attributes from practical considerations. The SELECT-IT meta-framework offers a structured, context-sensitive approach for selecting appropriate TMFs. Future research should evaluate its validity and utility across diverse contexts.
