Table 2 ASSESS tool item descriptions

1

Review or meta-analysis question

The overall question guiding the review or meta-analysis

Notes

Use this space to write notes to yourself or other extractors regarding decisions on how to enter data

Reported on page #

When used as a reporting tool, indicate the page number where the indicated information can be found

ARTICLE CITATION

2

Study author, publication year

Indicate the study author name and publication year

3

Study title

Indicate the study title

INTRODUCTION

Implementation strategy

“Implementation strategy” refers to how the intervention was implemented.

Intervention strategy

 “Intervention” refers to the healthcare or public health intervention that is being implemented.

4

Rationale

For implementation strategy: the scientific background and rationale for the implementation strategy (including any underpinning theory/framework/model, how it is expected to achieve its effects and any pilot work). For intervention: the scientific background and rationale for the intervention being implemented (including evidence about its effectiveness and how it is expected to achieve its effects).

5

Aim(s), objective(s), or research question(s) 

Are there clear aims, objectives, or research questions? Indicate the primary (upon which the study was primarily designed to address) and the secondary (addressing this is prioritized after the primary)

METHODS: DESCRIPTION

6

Descriptions

A description of the intervention and implementation strategy. Identify the components that are core components vs those that are tangential and modifiable for the context, if possible.

7

Adaptation

A description of any adaptation that has and/or will occur.

8

Design

The design and key features of the evaluation, (cross referencing to any appropriate methodology reporting standards) and any changes to study protocol, with reasons

9

Participant types

Who are the participants in the intervention and implementation strategy

10

Comparison group

If experimental design, indicate the comparison group for the intervention and/or implementation strategy

11

Context

The context in which the intervention was implemented.

12

Sites

The characteristics of the targeted ‘site(s)’ (e.g locations/personnel/resources etc.) for implementation and any eligibility criteria.

13

Subgroups (optional)

Any sub-groups recruited for additional research tasks, and/or nested studies are described

14

Implementation phase

Indicate whether evaluation occurred pre-, during , and/or post-implementation

15

Process evaluation

Process evaluation objectives and outcomes related to the mechanism by which the strategy is expected to work

16

Sample size

Rationale for sample sizes (including sample size calculations, budgetary constraints, practical considerations, data saturation, as appropriate)

17

Analysis

Methods of analysis (with reasons for that choice)

18

Sub-group analyses

Any a priori sub-group analyses (e.g. between different sites in a multicenter study, different clinical or demographic populations), and sub-groups recruited to specific nested research tasks

19

Outcomes (assessment) (Implementation)

Defined pre-specified primary and other outcome(s) of the implementation strategy, and how they were assessed.  Document any pre-determined targets

Quantitative column

Input the specific outcome

Qualitative column

Input the specific outcome

Acceptability

the perception among implementation stakeholders (beneficiaries and implementers) that the innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory

Adoption

the intention, initial decision, or action to try or employ the innovation (i.e. uptake)

Appropriateness

the perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation for a given practice setting, provider, or beneficiary; and/or perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem (OH prevention).

Feasibility

the extent to which the innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting

Fidelity

degree to which the innovation can be implemented as it was prescribed in the original protocol or as it was intended by the program developer

Cost

(incremental or implementation cost) is defined as the cost impact of an implementation effort

Penetration

the integration of a practice within a service setting and its subsystems

Sustainability

the extent to which a newly implemented innovation is maintained or institutionalized within a service setting’s ongoing, stable operations

19

Outcomes (assessment) (Intervention)

Defined pre-specified primary and other outcome(s) of the intervention (if assessed), and how they were assessed.   Document any pre-determined targets

Quantitative column

Input the specific outcome

Qualitative column

Input the specific outcome

Effectiveness

provision of services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit and refraining from providing services to those not likely to benefit (avoiding underuse and overuse, respectively)

Efficiency

the avoidance of waste, including waste of equipment, supplies, ideas,and energy

Equity

provision of care that does not vary in quality because of personalcharacteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status

Patient centeredness

provision of care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions

Safety

the avoidance of injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them

Timeliness

reduction of waits and sometimes harmful delays for both thosewho receive and those who give care

 RESULTS: DESCRIPTION

20

Outcomes (findings) (Implementation)

Defined pre-specified primary and other outcome(s) of the implementation strategy, and how they were assessed.  Document any pre-determined targets

Quantitative column

Input the specific outcome

Qualitative column

Input the specific outcome

Acceptability

the perception among implementation stakeholders (beneficiaries and implementers) that the innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory

Adoption

the intention, initial decision, or action to try or employ the innovation (i.e. uptake)

Appropriateness

the perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation for a given practice setting, provider, or beneficiary; and/or perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem (OH prevention).

Feasibility

the extent to which the innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting

Fidelity

degree to which the innovation can be implemented as it was prescribed in the original protocol or as it was intended by the program developer

Cost

(incremental or implementation cost) is defined as the cost impact of an implementation effort

Penetration

the integration of a practice within a service setting and its subsystems

Sustainability

the extent to which a newly implemented innovation is maintained or institutionalized within a service setting’s ongoing, stable operations

20

Outcomes (findings) (Intervention)

Defined pre-specified primary and other outcome(s) of the intervention (if assessed), and how they were assessed.   Document any pre-determined targets

Quantitative column

Input the specific outcome

Qualitative column

Input the specific outcome

Effectiveness

provision of services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit and refraining from providing services to those not likely to benefit (avoiding underuse and overuse, respectively)

Efficiency

the avoidance of waste, including waste of equipment, supplies, ideas,and energy

Equity

provision of care that does not vary in quality because of personalcharacteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status

Patient centeredness

provision of care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions

Safety

the avoidance of injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them

Timeliness

reduction of waits and sometimes harmful delays for both thosewho receive and those who give care

21

Barriers to implementation

Identify any factors examined that do or could challenge successful implementation

22

Facilitators of implementation

Identify any factors examined that do or could support successful implementation

METHODS: EVALUATION

23

Design

Follow steps 1, 2, and 3

Step 1

 Insert design type: Qualitative, Quantitative RCT, Quantitative non-randomized, or Mixed methods

Step 2

Step 2 insert 5 corresponding criteria from instructions

Qualitative criteria

1.1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question?

1.2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question?

1.3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data?

1.4. Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data?

1.5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation?

Quantitative, RCT criteria

2.1. Is randomization appropriately performed?

2.2. Are the groups comparable at baseline?

2.3. Are there complete outcome data?

2.4. Are outcome assessors blinded to the intervention provided?

2.5 Did the participants adhere to the assigned intervention?

Quantitative, non-randomized criteria

3.1. Are the participants representative of the target population?

3.2. Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)?

3.3. Are there complete outcome data?

3.4. Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis?

3.5. During the study period, is the intervention administered (or exposure occurred) as intended?

Mixed methods criteria

4.1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question?

4.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?

4.3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted?

4.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?

4.5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?

Step 3

Provide score (0 or 1) to each criteria where 1 indicates that the criteria was met and 0 indicates the criteria was not met

RESULTS: EVALUATION

Step 4

Sum the score from Step 3 and apply to the outcomes assessed

24

Outcomes

Bias Column

Indicate the degree of bias based on the design and methods, where 1-2=higher bias and 3-5=lower bias. Can also input 'unclear' if the degree of bias cannot be determined, or 'NA' for outcomes not assessed