Skip to main content

Table 2 Average cluster ratings compared between disciplines

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

ClusterImportanceFeasibility
IMP expertsUCD expertsdaIMP expertsUCD expertsda
1. Access resources3.53.20.182.92.50.35*
2. Promote leadership and collaboration3.93.80.053.53.30.17
3. Incentivize the innovation3.22.60.28*2.01.60.25
4. Monitor change3.83.40.31*3.43.00.33*
5. Support providers3.62.90.50*3.82.90.68*
6. Facilitate change4.03.80.194.03.60.28*
7. Develop and test solutions rapidly3.03.7− 0.43*3.74.4− 0.65*
8. Understand systems and context3.83.8− 0.014.04.1− 0.11
9. Consider user needs and experiences3.03.3− 0.273.54.1− 0.50*
10. Co-design solutions3.84.1− 0.28*3.84.2− 0.32*
  1. 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 F10,43 multivariate tests; * = p < 0.05
  2. IMP experts implementation experts, UCD experts user-centered design experts
  3. 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