Six practical recommendations for improved implementation outcomes reporting

Area of Science:

• Implementation Science
• Health Services Research
• Program Evaluation

Background:

• Implementation outcomes research faces challenges with consistent reporting of study findings.
• Existing literature shows a persistent problem in harmonizing the description of outcomes.
• Previous recommendations have improved reporting rigor, but further clarity is needed.

Purpose of the Study:

• To address the problem of inconsistent outcome reporting in implementation outcomes research.
• To provide practical recommendations for enhancing the clarity and rigor of outcome reporting.
• To offer guidance for researchers designing, conducting, and assessing implementation outcomes studies.

Main Methods:

• Revisiting the problem of outcome reporting clarity in implementation outcomes literature.
• Articulating current reporting problems through examples from current literature.
• Developing six pragmatic recommendations for improved reporting of implementation outcomes.

Main Results:

• Six practical recommendations are proposed to improve the clarity of implementation outcome reporting.
• Recommendations cover defining outcomes, specifying analysis, measurement details, data sources, and units of observation.
• The paper provides an audit worksheet and exemplar articles to support researchers.

Conclusions:

• The paper advances implementation outcomes research by illustrating the 2011 agenda with examples.
• Six pragmatic recommendations are offered to enhance reporting quality in implementation studies.
• These recommendations aim to improve the consistency and comparability of implementation outcomes research.