• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of jgimedspringer.comThis journalToc AlertsSubmit OnlineOpen Choice
J Gen Intern Med. Feb 2006; 21(Suppl 2): S1–S8.
PMCID: PMC2557128

The Role of Formative Evaluation in Implementation Research and the QUERI Experience

Cheryl B Stetler, PhD, RN, FAAN,1 Marcia W Legro, PhD,2,3 Carolyn M Wallace, PhD,2 Candice Bowman, PhD, RN,4 Marylou Guihan, PhD,5 Hildi Hagedorn, PhD,6 Barbara Kimmel, MS, MSc,7,8 Nancy D Sharp, PhD,2 and Jeffrey L Smith, (PhD candidate)9


This article describes the importance and role of 4 stages of formative evaluation in our growing understanding of how to implement research findings into practice in order to improve the quality of clinical care. It reviews limitations of traditional approaches to implementation research and presents a rationale for new thinking and use of new methods. Developmental, implementation-focused, progress-focused, and interpretive evaluations are then defined and illustrated with examples from Veterans Health Administration Quality Enhancement Research Initiative projects. This article also provides methodologic details and highlights challenges encountered in actualizing formative evaluation within implementation research.

Keywords: process assessment (health care), evaluation methodology, evaluation studies

As health care systems struggle to provide care based on well-founded evidence, there is increasing recognition of the inherent complexity of implementing research into practice. Health care managers and decision makers find they need a better understanding of what it takes to achieve successful implementation, and they look to health care researchers to provide this information. Researchers in turn need to fill this need through collection of new, diverse sets of data to enhance understanding and management of the complex process of implementation.

A measurement approach capable of providing critical information about implementation is formative evaluation (FE). Formative evaluation, used in other social sciences, is herein defined as a rigorous assessment process designed to identify potential and actual influences on the progress and effectiveness of implementation efforts. Formative evaluation enables researchers to explicitly study the complexity of implementation projects and suggests ways to answer questions about context, adaptations, and response to change.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) has integrated FE into its implementation program.13 This article introduces QUERI and its implementation focus. It then describes research challenges that call for the use of FE in this specialized field of study, reviews FE relative to QUERI implementation research, identifies 4 evaluative stages, and presents challenges to the conduct of FE.


The Quality Enhancement Research Initiative, begun in 1998, is a comprehensive, data-driven, outcomes-based, and output-oriented improvement initiative.2,3 It focuses on identification and implementation of empirically based practices for high-risk/high-volume conditions among the veteran population and on the evaluation and refinement of these implementation efforts.3 The Quality Enhancement Research Initiative's innovative approach14 calls upon researchers to work toward rapid, significant improvements through the systematic application of best clinical practices. It also calls upon researchers to study the implementation process to enhance and continuously refine these quality improvement (QI) efforts.14

Classic intervention research methods5,6 provide the means to evaluate targeted outcomes of implementation/QI efforts. From an evaluation perspective, studies using intervention designs, such as a cluster-randomized trial or quasi-experimental approaches, routinely include a summative evaluation. Summative evaluation is a systematic process of collecting data on the impacts, outputs, products, or outcomes hypothesized in a study.7 Resulting data provide information on the degree of success, effectiveness, or goal achievement of an implementation program.

In an action-oriented improvement program, such as QUERI, summative data are essential but insufficient to meet the needs of implementation/QI researchers. Evaluative information is needed beyond clinical impact of the change effort and beyond discovering whether a chosen adoption strategy worked. Implementation researchers need to answer critical questions about the feasibility of implementation strategies, degree of real-time implementation, status and potential influence of contextual factors, response of project participants, and any adaptations necessary to achieve optimal change. Formative evaluation provides techniques for obtaining such information and for overcoming limitations identified in early implementation/QI studies.


The RE-AIM framework of Glasgow and colleagues highlights critical information that is missing from current research publications—i.e.,information needed to evaluate a study's potential for translation and public health impact.8,9 Such information includes the efficacy/effectiveness of an intervention, its reach relative to actual/representative subject participation rate, its adoption relative to actual/representative setting participation rate, its implementation or intervention fidelity, and its maintenance over time.

The focus of the RE-AIM framework is the study of health promotion interventions. Similar issues must be addressed during implementation research if potential adopters are to replicate critical implementation processes. In addition, implementation researchers need to capture in-depth information on participant and contextual factors that facilitate or hinder successful implementation. Such factors can be used during the project to optimize implementation and inform post hoc interpretation.

As implementation efforts can be a relatively messy and complex process, traditional study designs alone are often inadequate to the task of obtaining evaluative information. For example, randomized clinical trials (RCT) may leave questions important to system-wide uptake of targeted research unanswered. As Stead et al.10,11 suggest, traditional intervention research can fail to “capture the detail and complexity of intervention inputs and tactics” (10, p. 354), thereby missing the true nature of interventions as well as significant organizational factors important for replication.10,11

Another argument for performing FE has been highlighted in guideline/QI literature, i.e., the need to address potential interpretive weaknesses. Such weaknesses relate to a failure to account for key elements of the implementation process and may lead to unexplainable and/or poor results. For example, Ovretveit and Gustafson12 identified implementation assessment failure, explanation failure, and outcome attribution failure. Implementation assessment failure can lead to a “Type III” error, where erroneous study interpretations occur because the intervention was not implemented as planned.12,13Explanation and outcome attribution relate to failures to explore the black box of implementation. Specifically, what actually did/did not happen within the study relative to the implementation plan, and what factors in the implementation setting, anticipated or unanticipated, influenced the actual degree of implementation? By failing to collect such data, potential study users have little understanding of a particular implementation strategy. For example, 1 study regarding opinion leadership did not report the concurrent implementation of standing orders.14

Use of a traditional intervention design does not obviate collection of the critical information cited above. Rather, complementary use of FE within an experimental study can create a dual or hybrid style approach for implementation research.15 The experimental design is thus combined with descriptive or observational research that employs a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques, creating a richer dataset for interpreting study results.


As with many methodologic concepts, there is no single definition/approach to FE. In fact, as Dehar et al.16 stated, there is a decided “lack of clarity and some disagreement among evaluation authors as to the meaning and scope” of related concepts (16, p. 204; see Table 1 for a sampling). Variations include differences in terminology, e.g., an author may refer to FE, process evaluation, or formative research.16,17

Table 1
A Spectrum of Definitions of Formative Evaluation

Given a mission to make rapid, evidence-based improvements to achieve better health outcomes, the authors have defined FE as a rigorous assessment process designed to identify potential and actual influences on the progress and effectiveness of implementation efforts. Related data collection occurs before, during, and after implementation to optimize the potential for success and to better understand the nature of the initiative, need for refinements, and the worth of extending the project to other settings. This approach to FE incorporates aspects of the last 2 definitions in Table 1 and concurs with the view that formative connotes action.16 In QUERI, this action focus differentiates FE from “process” evaluations where data are not intended for concurrent use.

Various uses of FE for implementation research are listed in Table 2. Uses span the timeframe or stages of a project, i.e., development/diagnosis, implementation, progress, and interpretation. Within QUERI, these stages are progressive, integrated components of a single hybrid project. Each stage is described below, in the context of a single project, and illustrated by QUERI examples (Tables 3, ,4,4, and and6610). Each table provides an example of 1 or more FE stages. However, as indicated in some of the examples, various evaluative activities can serve multiple stages, which then merge in practice. Formative evaluation at any stage requires distinct plans for adequate measurement and analysis.

Table 2
Potential Uses of Formative Evaluation10,13,16,2027
Table 3
An Example of Developmental FE
Table 4
Implementation-Focused FE
Table 6
Implementation and Progress-Focused FE
Table 10
An Illustrative, Potential FE

Developmental Evaluation

Developmental evaluation occurs during the first stage of a project and is termed a diagnostic analysis.1,28 It is focused on enhancing the likelihood of success in the particular setting/s of a project, and involves collection of data on 4 potential influences: (a) actual degree of less-than-best practice; (b) determinants of current practice; (c) potential barriers and facilitators to practice change and to implementation of the adoption strategy; and (d) strategy feasibility, including perceived utility of the project. (Note: studies conducted to obtain generic diagnostic information prior to development of an implementation study are considered formative research, not FE. Even if available, a diagnostic analysis is suggested given the likelihood that generically identified factors will vary across implementation sites.)

Activity at this stage may involve assessment of known prerequisites or other factors related to the targeted uptake of evidence, e.g., perceptions regarding the evidence, attributes of the proposed innovation, and/or administrative commitment.11,21,2931 Examples of formative diagnostic tools used within QUERI projects include organizational readiness and attitude/belief surveys32,33 (also see Tables 3 and and7).7). Such developmental data enable researchers to understand potential problems and, where possible, overcome them prior to initiation of interventions in study sites.

Table 7
Developmental/Implementation/Progress FE

In addition to information available from existent databases about current practice or setting characteristics, formative data can be collected from experts and representative clinicians/administrators. For example, negative unintended consequences might be prospectively identified by key informant or focus group interviews. This participatory approach may also facilitate commitment among targeted users.34

Implementation-Focused Evaluation

This type of FE occurs throughout implementation of the project plan. It focuses on analysis of discrepancies between the plan and its operationalization and identifies influences that may not have been anticipated through developmental activity. As Hulscher et al. note in a relevant overview of “process” evaluation, FE allows “researchers and implementers to (a) describe the intervention in detail, (b) evaluate and measure actual exposure to the intervention, and (c) describe the experience of those exposed (13, p. 40)”— concurrently. It also focuses on the dynamic context within which change is taking place, an increasingly recognized element of implementation.3740

Implementation-focused formative data enable researchers to describe and understand more fully the major barriers to goal achievement and what it actually takes to achieve change, including the timing of project activities. By describing the actuality of implementation, new interventions may be revealed. In terms of timing, formative data can clarify the true length of time needed to complete an intervention, as failure to achieve results could relate to insufficient intervention time.

Implementation-focused formative data also are used to keep the strategies on track and as a result optimize the likelihood of affecting change by resolving actionable barriers, enhancing identified levers of change, and refining components of the implementation interventions. Rather than identify such modifiable components on a post hoc basis, FE provides timely feedback to lessen the likelihood of type III errors (see Tables 4, ,6,6, ,7,7, and and99).

Table 9
Implementation/Interpretive FE

In summary, FE data collected at this stage offer several advantages. They can (a) highlight actual versus planned interventions, (b) enable implementation through identification of modifiable barriers, (c) facilitate any needed refinements in the original implementation intervention, (d) enhance interpretation of project results, and (e) identify critical details and guidance necessary for replication of results in other clinical settings.

Measurement within this stage can be a simple or complex task. Table 5 describes several critical issues that researchers should consider. As with other aspects of FE, both quantitative and qualitative approaches can be used.

Table 5
Critical Measures of Implementation

Progress-Focused Evaluation

This type of FE occurs during implementation of study strategies, but focuses on monitoring impacts and indicators of progress toward goals. The proactive nature of FE is emphasized, as progress data become feedback about the degree of movement toward desired outcomes. Using implementation data on dose, intensity, and barriers, factors blocking progress may be identified. Steps can then be taken to optimize the intervention and/or reinforce progress via positive feedback to key players. As Krumholz and Herrin49 suggest, waiting until implementation is completed to assess results “obscures potentially important information … about trends in practice during the study [that] could demonstrate if an effort is gaining momentum—or that it is not sustainable” (see Tables 6 and and77).

Interpretive Evaluation

This stage is usually not considered a type of FE but deserves separate attention, given its role in the illumination of the black box of implementation/change. Specifically, FE data provide alternative explanations for results, help to clarify the meaning of success in implementation, and enhance understanding of an implementation strategy's impact or “worth.” Such “black box” interpretation occurs through the end point triangulation of qualitative and quantitative FE data, including associational relationships with impacts.

Interpretive FE uses the results of all other FE stages. In addition, interpretive information can be collected at the end of the project about key stakeholder experiences. Stakeholders include individuals expected to put evidence into practice as well as those individuals expected to support that effort. These individuals can be asked about their perceptions of the implementation program, its interventions, and changes required of them and their colleagues.10,13,27,38,46,54 Information can be obtained on stakeholder views regarding (a) usefulness or value of each intervention, (b) satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various aspects of the process, (c) reasons for their own program-related action or inaction, (d) additional barriers and facilitators, and (e) recommendations for further refinements.

Information can also be obtained regarding the degree to which stakeholders believe the implementation project was successful, as well as the overall “worth” of the implementation effort. Statistical significance will be calculated using the summative data. However, as inferential statistical significance does not necessarily equate with clinical significance, it is useful to obtain perceptions of stakeholders relative to the “meaning” of statistical findings. For some stakeholders, this meaning will be placed in the context of the cost of obtaining the change relative to its perceived benefits (see Tables 810).

Table 8
Interpretive FE

Formative evaluation, as a descriptive assessment activity, does not per se test hypotheses. However, within an experimental study, in-depth data from a concurrent FE can provide working hypotheses to explain successes or failures, particularly when the implementation and evaluation plans are grounded in a conceptual framework.5557 In this respect, interpretive FE may be considered as case study data that contribute to theory building.58 Overall, FE data may provide evidence regarding targeted components of a conceptual framework, insights into the determinants of behavior or system change, and hypotheses for future testing.


Formative evaluation is a new concept as applied to health services research and as such presents multiple challenges. Some researchers may need help in understanding how FE can be incorporated into a study design. Formative evaluation is also a time-consuming activity and project leaders may need to be convinced of its utility before committing study resources. In addition, much is yet to be learned about effective approaches to the following types of issues:

  1. In the well-controlled RCT, researchers do not typically modify an experimental intervention once approved. However, in improvement-oriented research, critical problems that prevent an optimal test of the planned implementation can be identified and resolved. Such actions may result in alterations to the original plan. The challenge for the researcher is to identify that point at which modifications create a different intervention or add an additional intervention. Likewise, when the researcher builds in “local adaptation,” the challenge is to determine its limits or clarify statistical methods available to control for the differences. An implementation framework and clear identification of the underlying conceptual nature of each intervention can facilitate this process. As Hawe et al.43 suggest, the researcher has to think carefully about the “essence of the intervention” in order to understand the actual nature of implementation and the significance of formative modifications.
  2. Implementation and QI researchers may encounter the erroneous view that FE involves only qualitative research or that it is not rigorous, e.g., that it consists of “just talking to a few people”. However, FE does not lack rigor nor is it simply a matter of qualitative research or a specific qualitative methodology. Rather, FE involves selecting among rigorous qualitative and quantitative methods to accomplish a specific set of aims, with a plan designed to produce credible data relative to explicit formative questions.61
  3. A critical challenge for measurement planning is selection or development of methods that yield quantitative data for the following types of issues: (a) assessment of associations between outcome findings and the intensity, dose, or exposure to interventions and (b) measurement of the adaptations of a “standard” protocol across diverse implementation settings.62 Whether flexibility is a planned or unplanned component of a study, it should be measured in some consistent, quantifiable fashion that enables cross-site comparisons. Goal attainment scaling is 1 possibility.47,48
  4. A final issue facing implementation researchers is how to determine the degree to which FE activities influence the results of an implementation project. If FE itself is an explicit intervention, it will need to be incorporated into recommendations for others who wish to replicate the study's results. More specifically, the researcher must systematically reflect upon why formative data were collected, how they were used, by whom they were used, and to what end. For example, to what extent did FE enable refinement to the implementation intervention such that the likelihood of encountering barriers in the future is adequately diminished? Or, in examining implementation issues across study sites, to what extent did FE provide information that led to modifications at individual sites? If the data and subsequent adjustments at individual sites were deemed critical to project success, upon broader dissemination to additional sites, what specific FE activities should be replicated, and by whom?


Formative evaluation is a study approach that is often key to the success, interpretation, and replication of the results of implementation/QI projects. Formative evaluation can save time and frustration as data highlight factors that impede the ability of clinicians to implement best practices. It can also identify at an early stage whether desired outcomes are being achieved so that implementation strategies can be refined as needed; it can make the realities and black box nature of implementation more transparent to decision makers; and it can increase the likelihood of obtaining credible summative results about effectiveness and transferability of an implementation strategy. Formative evaluation helps to meet the many challenges to effective implementation and its scientific study, thereby facilitating integration of research findings into practice and improvement of patient care.


The work reported here was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


1. QUERI. [August 10, 2005]. HSRD special solicitation for service directed projects (SDP) on implementation of research into practice (posted 2003). Available at: http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/for_researchers/funding/solicitations/
2. Demakis JG, McQueen L, Kizer KW, Feussner JR. Quality enhancement research initiative (QUERI): a collaboration between research and clinical practice. Med Care. 2000;38(suppl 1):I17–25. [PubMed]
3. McQueen L, Mittman BS, Demakis JG. Overview of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11:339–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. QUERI. [August 10, 2005]. QUERI program description (posted July 2003). Available at http://www1.va.gov/hsrd/queri/
5. Cook TD, Campbell DT. Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1979.
6. Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1963.
7. Isaac S, Michael W. Handbook in Research and Evaluation: For Education and the Behavioral Sciences. San Diego: EdITS Publishers; 1982.
8. Dzewaltowski D, Estabrooks P, Glasgow R, Klesges L. [July 9, 2005]. Workgoup to evaluate and enhance the reach and dissemination of health promotion interventions (RE-AIM). Available at http://www.re-aim.org/2003/whoweare.html.
9. Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus A. Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Pub Health. 2003;93:1261–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Stead M, Hastings G, Eadie D. The challenge of evaluating complex interventions: a framework for evaluating media advocacy. Health Educ Res. 2002;17:351–64. [PubMed]
11. Zapka J, Goins KV, Pbert L, Ockene JK. Translating efficacy research to effectiveness studies in practice: lessons from research to promote smoking cessation in community health centers. Health Promot Pract. 2004;5:245–55. [PubMed]
12. Ovretveit J, Gustafson D. Using research to inform quality programmes. BMJ. 2003;326:759–61. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Hulscher M, Laurant M, Grol R. Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;12:40–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Solberg LI. Guideline implementation: what the literature doesn't tell us. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2000;26:525–37. [PubMed]
15. Mittman B. Creating the evidence base for quality improvement collaboratives. Ann Int Med. 2004;140:897–901. [PubMed]
16. Dehar MA, Casswell S, Duignan P. Formative and process evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention programs. Eval Rev. 1993;17:204–20.
17. Rossi P, Freeman H. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1993.
18. Bhola HS. Evaluating “Literacy for Development” Projects, Programs and Campaigns: Evaluation Planning, Design and Implementation, and Utilization of Evaluation Results. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Education; DSE (German Foundation for International Development), xii; 1990.
19. Patton MQ. Evaluation of program implementation. Eval Stud Rev Annu. 1979;4:318–45.
20. Altman DG. A framework for evaluating community-based heart disease prevention programs. Soc Sci Med. 1986;22:479–87. [PubMed]
21. Havas S, Anliker J, Damron D, Feldman R, Langenberg P. Uses of process evaluation in the Maryland WIC 5-a-day promotion program. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27:254–63. [PubMed]
22. Evans RI, Raines BE, Owen AE. Formative evaluation in school-based health promotion investigations. Prev Med. 1989;18:229–34. [PubMed]
23. Patton MQ. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1997.
24. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 2001.
25. Walshe K, Freeman T. Effectiveness of quality improvement: learning from evaluations. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:85–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Wholey J, Hatry H, Newcomer K. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1994.
27. Forsetlund L, Talseth KO, Bradley P, Nordheim L, Bjorndal A. Many a slip between cup and lip. Process evaluation of a program to promote and support evidence-based public health practice. Eval Rev. 2003;27:179–209. [PubMed]
28. [August 10, 2005]. Guide for Implementing Evidence-Based Clinical Practice and Conducting Implementation Research. Available at http://www1.va.gov/hsrd/queri/implementation.
29. van Bokhoven MA, Kok G, van der Weijden T. Designing a quality improvement intervention: a systematic approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;3:215–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 4. New York: Free Press; 1995.
31. Stetler C, Corrigan B, Sander-Buscemi K, Burns M. Integration of evidence into practice and the change process: a fall prevention program as a model. Outcomes Manag Nurs Practice. 1999;3:102–11. [PubMed]
32. Sales A. [August 10, 2005]. Organizational readiness for evidence-based health care interventions. Available at http://www.measurementsexperts.org/instrument;instrument_reviews.asp?detail=53.
33. Luther SL, Nelson A, Powell-Cope G. Provider attitudes and beliefs about clinical practice guidelines. SCI Nurs. 2004;21:206–12. [PubMed]
34. Brown K, Gerhardt M. Formative evaluation: an integrative practice model and case study. Personnel Psychol. 2002;55:951f.
35. Legro M, Wallace C, Hatzakis M, Goldstein B. Barriers to optimal use of computerized clinical reminders: the SCI QUERI experience. VA QUERI Quart. 2003;4:2.
36. Wallace C, Hatzakis M, Legro M, Goldstein B. Understanding a VA preventive care clinical reminder: lessons learned. SCI Nurs. 2004;21:149–52. [PubMed]
37. Stetler C. The role of the organization in translating research into evidence based practice. Outcomes Manag Nurs Practice. 2003;7:97–103. [PubMed]
38. Rycroft-Malone J, Kitson A, Harvey G, et al. Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:174–80. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
39. McCormack B, Kitson A, Harvey G, et al. Getting evidence into practice: the meaning of ‘context’ J Adv Nurs. 2002;38:94–104. [PubMed]
40. Bradley E, Holmboe E, Mattera J, et al. A qualitative study of increasing β-blocker use after myocardial infarction: why do some hospitals succeed? J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285:2604–11. [PubMed]
41. Kimmel B. 2003. Bridging the gap between knowledge and practice — the veterans administration pathway, Newsletter of the National Council of the University Research Administrators 2003–4;35.
42. Dunlap M, Beyth R, Deswal A, Massie B, Saleh J, Kimmel B. VA practice matters on treating chronic heart failure. [September 9, 2005];VA Practice Matters. 9:1–8. Available at http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/internal/pm_v9_n1.pdf 2004.
43. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomized controlled trial be? BMJ. 2004;328:1561–3. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
44. Kirchhoff K, Dille C. Issues in intervention research: maintaining integrity. Appl Nurs Res. 1994;7:32–8. [PubMed]
45. Santacroce SJ, Maccarelli LM, Grey M. Intervention fidelity. Nurs Res. 2004;53:63–6. [PubMed]
46. Boyd NR, Windsor RA. A formative evaluation in maternal and child health practice: the partners for life nutrition education program for pregnant women. Matern Child Health J. 2003;7:137–43. [PubMed]
47. Stetler C, Creer E, Effken J. Evaluating a redesign program: challenges and opportunities. In: Kelly K, editor. Series on Nursing Administration. Vol. 8. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book; 1996.
48. Effken E, Stetler C. Impact of organizational redesign. J Nurs Admin. 1997;27:23–32. [PubMed]
49. Krumholz H, Herrin J. Quality improvement: the need is there but so are the challenges. Am J Med. 2000;109:501–3. [PubMed]
50. Willenbring ML, Hagedorn H. Implementing evidence-based practices in opioid agonist therapy clinics. In: Roberts A, Yeager K, editors. Evidence-Based Practice Manual: Research and Outcome Measures in Health and Human Services 2004. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. pp. 340–7.
51. Willenbring ML, Hagedorn H, Poster AC, Kenny M. Variations in evidence-based clinical practices in nine United States Veterans Administration opioid agonist therapy clinics. Drug Alcohol Dependence. 2004;75:97–106. [PubMed]
52. LaVela S, Legro M, Weaver F, Smith B. Staff influenza vaccination: lessons learned. SCI Nurs. 2004;21:153–7. [PubMed]
53. La Vela SL, Legro MW, Weaver FM, Goldstein B, Smith B. Do Patient Intentions Predict Vaccination Behavior Over Time? Poster. Academy Health Annual Conference June 2004. San Diego, CA: 2004.
54. Nazareth I, Freemantle N, Duggan C, Mason J, Haines A. Evaluation of a complex intervention for changing professional behaviour: the evidence based out reach (EBOR) Trial. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:230–8. [PubMed]
55. Kukafka R, Johnson SB, Linfante A, Allegrante JP. Grounding a new information technology implementation framework in behavioral science: a systematic analysis of the literature on IT use. J Biomed Inform. 2003;36:218–27. [PubMed]
56. Sanson-Fisher RW, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP. The science of changing providers' behaviour: the missing link in evidence-based practice. Med J Aust. 2004;180:205–6. [PubMed]
57. Walker AE, Grimshaw J, Johnston M, Pitts N, Steen N, Eccles M. PRIME—PRocess modelling in ImpleMEntation research: selecting a theoretical basis for interventions to change clinical practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2003;3:22. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
58. Yin R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.
59. Patterson ES, Nguyen AD, Halloran JM, Asch SM. Human factors barriers to the effective use of ten HIV clinical reminders. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11:50–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
60. Sharp ND, Pineros SL, Hsu C, Starks H, Sales AE. A qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of pilot interventions in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Northwest Network. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2004;1:129–39. [PubMed]
61. Devers KJ, Sofaer S, Rundall TG. Qualitative methods in health services research: a special supplement to HSR. Health Services Res. 1999;34:1083–263. (Guest eds.) part II.
62. Litchman J, Roumanis S, Radford M, et al. Can practice guidelines be transported effectively to different settings? Results from a multi-center interventional study. J Comm J Qual Improv. 2001;27:42–53. [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of General Internal Medicine are provided here courtesy of Society of General Internal Medicine
PubReader format: click here to try


Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...


  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...