Aligning implementation and user-centered design strategies to enhance the impact of health services: results from a concept mapping study

Table 2 Average cluster ratings compared between disciplines

Cluster	Importance			Feasibility
Cluster	IMP experts	UCD experts	d^a	IMP experts	UCD experts	d^a
1. Access resources	3.5	3.2	0.18	2.9	2.5	0.35*
2. Promote leadership and collaboration	3.9	3.8	0.05	3.5	3.3	0.17
3. Incentivize the innovation	3.2	2.6	0.28*	2.0	1.6	0.25
4. Monitor change	3.8	3.4	0.31*	3.4	3.0	0.33*
5. Support providers	3.6	2.9	0.50*	3.8	2.9	0.68*
6. Facilitate change	4.0	3.8	0.19	4.0	3.6	0.28*
7. Develop and test solutions rapidly	3.0	3.7	− 0.43*	3.7	4.4	− 0.65*
8. Understand systems and context	3.8	3.8	− 0.01	4.0	4.1	− 0.11
9. Consider user needs and experiences	3.0	3.3	− 0.27	3.5	4.1	− 0.50*
10. Co-design solutions	3.8	4.1	− 0.28*	3.8	4.2	− 0.32*

Importance and feasibility values reflect the product of an expert panel (valid response n = 54) rating 66 discrete implementation and user-centered design strategies on a scale from 1 to 5. Comparisons based on F_10,43 multivariate tests; * = p < 0.05
IMP experts implementation experts, UCD experts user-centered design experts
^aCohen’s d effect size, also known as the standardized mean difference; calculated such that positive values reflect higher ratings by implementation experts and negative values reflect higher ratings by UCD experts; thresholds are d = 0.2 for small effect, d = 0.5 for medium effect, and d = 0.8 for large effect

ISSN: 2662-2211