Table 5 Data elements
Variable | Format | Description |
|---|---|---|
Article identifiers | ||
 First author | Free text | Last name of the article’s first author |
 Title | Free text | Title of the article |
 Publication year | Numerical | Year in which the article was published |
 Article type | Categorical | Whether the article is labeled as a research article or short report by the journal |
Primary question: to what extent have the PATH4IR Project’s priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses been studied in IR to date? | ||
 IS | Dichotomous | Whether the study develops or assesses an IS |
Categorical | If yes, whether the implementation strategies of interest are evaluative and iterative, provide interactive assistance, adapt and tailor to context, develop stakeholder interrelationships, train and educate stakeholders, support clinicians, engage consumers, utilize financial strategies, or change infrastructure | |
Free text | If yes, lists the IS of interest | |
 HHRO | Dichotomous | Whether the study assesses an HHRO |
Free text | If yes, lists the HHRO of interest | |
 EBMI | Dichotomous | Whether the study assesses an EBMI |
Free text | If yes, lists the EBMI of interest | |
 CRMM | Dichotomous | Whether the study assesses a contextual factor as a moderator or mediator in some relationship |
Categorical | If yes, whether the contextual factors of interest are related to intervention characteristics (e.g., complexity), outer setting (e.g., external policies and incentives), inner setting (e.g., leadership engagement), individual characteristics (e.g., staff perceptions about the intervention), or the implementation process (e.g., extent of planning ahead of implementation) | |
 Path C | Dichotomous | Whether the study assessed the IS ➔ HHRO relationship |
 Path A | Dichotomous | Whether the study assessed the IS ➔ EBMI relationship |
 Path B | Dichotomous | Whether the study assessed the EBMI ➔ HHRO relationship |
 URQ hypothesis | Dichotomous | Whether the study tested a URQ hypothesis |
 ULQ hypothesis | Dichotomous | Whether the study tested a ULQ hypothesis |
 LLQ hypothesis | Dichotomous | Whether the study tested an LLQ hypothesis |
 LRQ hypothesis | Dichotomous | Whether the study tested an LRQ hypothesis |
Secondary question: Which other domains have been studied in IR to date? | ||
 Implementation outcome | Dichotomous | Whether the study assesses an implementation outcome that is not yet evidence-based |
Categorical | If yes, whether the implementation outcomes of interest are related to acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, or sustainability | |
Free text | If yes, lists the contextual factors of interest | |
 Context generally | Dichotomous | Whether the study considers the implementation context without assessing it as a moderator or mediator in some relationship |
Categorical | If yes, whether the contextual factors of interest are related to intervention characteristics (e.g., complexity), outer setting (e.g., external policies and incentives), inner setting (e.g., leadership engagement), individual characteristics (e.g., staff perceptions about the intervention), or the implementation process (e.g., extent of planning ahead of implementation) | |
Free text | If yes, lists the contextual factors of interest | |
 Other domain | Free text | Lists domains other than IS, HHRO, EBMI, implementation outcomes, CRMM, or context generally that are studied |
Secondary question: Which other aims have been studied in IR to date? | ||
 Path A-ish | Dichotomous | Whether the study assessed the IS ➔ implementation outcome relationship |
 Other aim | Free text | Lists relationships other than path C, path A, path A-ish, and path B that are studied |
Secondary question: Which other hypotheses have been tested in IR to date? | ||
 Other hypothesis | Free text | Lists testable hypotheses other than URQ, ULQ, LLQ, and LRQ that are studied |