Comparar métodos
Revisa los métodos seleccionados uno junto a otro; las filas que difieren aparecen resaltadas.
| Marco Consolidado para la Investigación de la Implementación (CFIR)× | Taxonomía de Resultados de Implementación× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Ciencia de la implementación | Ciencia de la implementación |
| Familia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Año de origen≠ | 2009 | 2011 |
| Autor original≠ | Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., et al. | Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., et al. |
| Tipo≠ | Framework | Taxonomy |
| Fuente seminal≠ | Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowson, E. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4, 50. DOI ↗ | Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G. A., Bunger, A., ... & Rojas, D. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76. DOI ↗ |
| Alias | CFIR, CFIR model, consolidated framework | implementation outcomes, Proctor framework, implementation success measures |
| Relacionados | 5 | 5 |
| Resumen≠ | The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a five-domain model designed to systematically evaluate the factors influencing implementation success of evidence-based interventions in health systems. Developed by Damschroder et al. (2009) and refined through extensive use across health domains, CFIR provides a structured vocabulary and taxonomy of 39 constructs that identify implementation barriers and facilitators across intervention characteristics, organizational context, individual factors, and implementation process. | The Implementation Outcome Taxonomy is a framework defining eight measurable dimensions for assessing implementation success: Acceptability, Adoption, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Fidelity, Implementation Cost, Penetration, and Sustainability. Developed by Proctor et al. (2011), it provides a standardized vocabulary and measurement approach to distinguish implementation process outcomes (how well was the intervention delivered?) from clinical outcomes (did patients get better?). This taxonomy is foundational to implementation science because it acknowledges that an evidence-based intervention can be effective (clinical outcome) but poorly implemented (implementation outcome), or feasible to deliver but not adopted by organizations. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de datos ↗ |
|
|