DEVELOPMENTAL ADVANCES OF THE PARIHS FRAMEWORK OVER THE LAST DECADE: A CRITICAL INTERPRETIVE SYNTHESIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The original Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) and i-PARiHS frameworks contend that the successful implementation of evidence-based practices is a function of the core elements evidence, context, facilitation, and the capacity of intended recipients to apply research to practice. While applied widely, a number of theoretical and practical challenges associated with the framework’s application have been identified. Our critical interpretive synthesis examines how the last decade of research has advanced understanding of the conceptualizations of, relationships between, and dynamics amongst, PARiHS core elements. We find that work over the past decade affords more nuanced conceptualizations of context and facilitation; reveals myriad conceptualizations of implementation success, suggesting the need for a typology; demonstrates contradictory effects of context on facilitation that warrants more study; leads us to question the contextual primacy of leadership; and generally under-examines the interactions and dynamics amongst PARiHS core elements and their sub-elements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.199 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".