Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Implement Sci. 2017 Jul 28;12(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0628-2.

Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks.

Author information

1
Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA. tskolar@med.umich.edu.
2
Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. tskolar@med.umich.edu.
3
Urology Section, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. tskolar@med.umich.edu.
4
Department of Political Science, College of Literature, Science and the Arts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
5
Prevention Research Center in St. Louis/George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
6
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA.
7
Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA.
8
Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

A recent review of frameworks used in dissemination and implementation (D&I) science described 61 judged to be related either to dissemination, implementation, or both. The current use of these frameworks and their contributions to D&I science more broadly has yet to be reviewed. For these reasons, our objective was to determine the role of these frameworks in the development of D&I science.

METHODS:

We used the Web of Science™ Core Collection and Google Scholar™ to conduct a citation network analysis for the key frameworks described in a recent systematic review of D&I frameworks (Am J Prev Med 43(3):337-350, 2012). From January to August 2016, we collected framework data including title, reference, publication year, and citations per year and conducted descriptive and main path network analyses to identify those most important in holding the current citation network for D&I frameworks together.

RESULTS:

The source article contained 119 cited references, with 50 published articles and 11 documents identified as a primary framework reference. The average citations per year for the 61 frameworks reviewed ranged from 0.7 to 103.3 among articles published from 1985 to 2012. Citation rates from all frameworks are reported with citation network analyses for the framework review article and ten highly cited framework seed articles. The main path for the D&I framework citation network is presented.

CONCLUSIONS:

We examined citation rates and the main paths through the citation network to delineate the current landscape of D&I framework research, and opportunities for advancing framework development and use. Dissemination and implementation researchers and practitioners may consider frequency of framework citation and our network findings when planning implementation efforts to build upon this foundation and promote systematic advances in D&I science.

KEYWORDS:

Behavioral theory; Bibliometrics; Implementation science; Knowledge translation; Management science; Model; Network analysis; Quality improvement

PMID:
28754140
PMCID:
PMC5534119
DOI:
10.1186/s13012-017-0628-2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center