Dissemination of evidence-based recommendations and knowledge brokering have emerged as potential strategies to achieve evidence implementation by influencing resource allocation decisions.
To move the implementation science field forward and to provide a practical tool to apply the knowledge in this field, this article describes a systematic process for planning or selecting implementation strategies: Implementation Mapping.
The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers.
The need for implementation science in health is now broadly recognized, and a working understanding of the qualities that make an implementation study “good” is needed more than ever before.
Recommendations are provided for a minimum set of items that should be addressed and included in SAPs for clinical trials. Trial registration, protocols, and statistical analysis plans are critically important in ensuring appropriate reporting of clinical trials.
Adaptive trial design has been proposed as a means to increase the efficiency of randomized clinical trials, potentially benefiting trial participants and future patients while reducing costs and enhancing the likelihood of finding a true benefit, if one exists, of the therapy being studied.
The objective of the study was to outline key considerations for general clinical readers when critically evaluating publications on platform trials and for researchers when designing these types of clinical trials.
In this review, using a series of examples derived from equivalence and non-inferiority/superiority RCTs, we describe the main differences and methodological aspects among these three different types of RCTs