Implementation Outcome Taxonomy
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.
원본 기록
방법의 원본 기록에서 그대로 복사된 인용입니다. 이로부터 수준별 검증이 추론되지 않습니다.
- 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 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
- Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G. A., Bunger, A., ... & Rojas, D. (2015). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(2), 123-132. · URL
- Raghavan, R., Bright, C. L., & Shadoin, A. L. (2008). Toward a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 35(3), 142-154. · DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-3-26
큐레이션된 주장
각각 자체 평가와 함께 증거 원장에 유지된 주장입니다.
원장에 주장 평가가 없는 경우 이 보기에서는 주장 평가를 만들지 않습니다.
관련 방법
방법 그래프에서 생성되었으며 기계가 제안한 관계로 표시됩니다 — 증거 주장이 추론되지 않습니다.