Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of intervention implementation studies included in step 1 and step 2 in n (%)1

From: Methodological approaches to study context in intervention implementation studies: an evidence gap map

  

Studies step 1 (n = 110)

Studies step 2 (n = 24)

Article type

Study protocol

90 (81.8)

22 (91.7)

Original article

20 (18.2)

2 (8.3)

Continent

North America

45 (40.9)

11 (45.8)

Europe

37 (33.6)

10 (41.7)

Australia

14 (12.7)

2 (8.3)

Africa

7 (6.4)

1 (4.2)

Asia

5 (4.6)

-

South America

2 (1.8)

-

Setting

Health care

72 (65.5)

16 (66.7)

Primary care

20 (31.8)

5 (20.8)

Health care system

13 (11.8)

4 (16.7)

Hospitals

9 (8.2)

2 (8.3)

Nursing homes

9 (8.2)

1 (4.2)

Mental health care

7 (6.4)

-

Outpatient care

5 (4.6)

1 (4.2)

Emergency departments

4 (3.6)

2 (8.3)

Rehabilitation services

3 (2.7)

1 (4.2)

Veterans Health Administration

2 (1.8)

-

Community settings

35 (31.8)

7 (29.2)

Community care

15 (13.6)

1 (4.2)

Schools

12 (10.9)

4 (16.7)

Workplace

2 (1.8)

 

Churches

2 (1.8)

-

Justice

2 (1.8)

2 (8.3)

Kindergarten

2 (1.8)

-

Other

3 (2.7)

1 (4.2)

Family planning services

1 (0.9)

-

Pharmacies

1 (0.9)

-

Supermarkets

1 (0.9)

1 (4.2)

Study design testing clinical effectiveness

Experimental

84 (76.4)

17 (70.8)

Quasi-experimental

26 (23.6)

7 (29.2)

  1. Note. 1 Step 1 focusses on all identified intervention implementation studies, step 2 focusses only on studies that conducted a contextual analysis