The application of group concept mapping in implementation science: a scoping review

The application of group concept mapping in implementation science: a scoping review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review The application of group concept mapping in implementation science: a scoping review Huanyu Hu, Le Xu, NIYIBIZI Julius, Bohan Li, Run (Sherry) Wang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8572195/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: Group Concept Mapping (GCM), a participatory mixed-methods approach, structures stakeholder knowledge for implementation. Despite its growing use, it remains unclear which implementation tasks GCM most commonly supports, how its application is distributed across implementation stages, and whether current reporting practices enable translation of GCM outputs into implementation action. Objective: To map GCM’s use in implementation science, focusing on (1) implementation stages and tasks supported by GCM, (2) GCM methodological features, and (3) GCM reporting practices and their links to decision-making. Methods: This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Eligible studies were English/Chinese research that applied GCM within implementation science, with no date restriction. Searches were conducted on December 29, 2024, across 10 electronic and grey literature databases. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts using Covidence, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer; exclusion reasons were documented. The form captured study characteristics, implementation science steps, GCM methodological characteristics, and outcomes. Results: 125 studies (1995–2024) were included. Publication growth peak in 2024, with studies concentrated in North America (48.3%) and Europe (31.3%). Most studies were published in core implementation science journals, particularly Implementation Science (n=7, 5.6%) and Implementation Science Communications (n=6, 4.8%). 85.6% used GCM as the sole method. Seven primary thematic domains were identified, with “Implementation Science Methods, Conceptualization, and Capacity Building” as the largest (n=33, 26.4%), followed by “Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health” (n=20, 16.0%) and “Infectious Diseases and Cancer” (n=19, 15.2%). Regarding implementation science components, 75.2% studies applied GCM to the determinants (barriers and facilitators) of implementation stage, while 5 studies addressed two stages simultaneously. Methodologically, generated statements ranged from 15 to 406 (most <100), with 4–18 clusters identified, and for data visualization, cluster maps (72.0%) and go-zone plots (63.4%) were the most frequent outputs. Conclusions: GCM is a valuable participatory method for structuring stakeholder knowledge in implementation science, particularly for identifying implementation determinants. It remains underutilized for later-stage tasks (e.g., strategy selection, sustainment planning, scale-up). Future research should frame GCM as a decision-support tool (not a stand-alone analytic exercise), integrate complementary designs, and explicitly document its role in implementation planning and outcomes. Protocol Registration : DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/ECFSG Group concept mapping Implementation science Scoping review Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 INTRODUCTION Group Concept Mapping (GCM) is a participatory mixed-methods approach that enables diverse stakeholders to collaboratively generate, structure, and represent ideas about complex topics through visual cluster maps(1). Originally developed by Trochim in the 1980s, GCM integrates qualitative brainstorming with quantitative multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to produce a conceptual framework that reflects the group's collective understanding(1). This method uniquely fosters stakeholder engagement by ensuring active participation throughout all phases of the research process—from idea generation to interpretation—thereby enhancing shared understanding, facilitating communication, and promoting authentic consensus-building among participants with diverse perspectives. In implementation science, GCM holds particular promise for addressing two core challenges: engaging heterogeneous stakeholders and structuring/prioritizing complex, stakeholder-generated knowledge to inform implementation planning and decision-making. In practice, GCM applications encompass a range of implementation-relevant functions, including prioritizing implementation determinants (barriers and facilitators), co-designing intervention components, and building consensus on implementation pathways in diverse health settings. For instance, Thepha et al. used GCM to engage community members and health professionals in developing a feasible 3-year breastfeeding implementation strategy in Thailand(2). However, despite its growing use, it remains unclear how GCM has actually been deployed across the implementation cycle, which implementation tasks it most commonly supports, and whether current reporting practices adequately document how GCM outputs are translated into implementation action. Without such clarity, the contribution of GCM to implementation science risks being understood primarily in methodological terms rather than in terms of its utility for implementation decision-making and practice. This review addresses these uncertainties by mapping GCM's deployment, tasks, and translational pathways, informing more equitable and rigorous stakeholder-engaged research. OBJECTIVES The objective of this scoping review is to examine how GCM has been used within implementation science, with specific aims to: (1) map the implementation stages at which GCM has been applied across the implementation cycle; (2) characterize the implementation tasks and functions that GCM has been used to support (e.g., determinant identification, prioritization, or strategy development); and (3) assess the completeness of reporting and the extent to which GCM outputs are documented as informing implementation decisions or actions. By synthesizing this evidence, the review aims to inform more rigorous, transparent, and implementation-relevant use of GCM in stakeholder-engaged implementation research. METHODS Study Design To ensure the rigour and clarity of the review process, we followed the scoping review framework outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) manual for evidence synthesis(3), which is underpinned by the framework of Arskey and O’Malley and enhanced by Levac and colleagues. The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ECFSG). In reporting this review, we adhere to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist(4). Participants This scoping review did not place restrictions on specific participant groups; instead, eligibility was determined by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to the studies themselves. Concepts The study will define Implementation Science as research on the development, selection, and evaluation of implementation strategies to promote the uptake, implementation, long-term sustainment, and scale-up of Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs), interventions, and policies; studies that identify and examine barriers and facilitators influencing implementation; and evaluations of implementation processes, mechanisms, and outcomes. We acknowledge that, in the existing literature, some studies do not clearly distinguish between EBPs or innovations and implementation strategies. In particular, studies may describe the co-creation of “strategies” when the activities primarily involve the design or adaptation of the intervention or innovation itself. For the purposes of this review, such studies will be carefully examined and, where appropriate, reclassified as focusing on intervention or EBP development rather than on implementation strategy development, in accordance with established conceptual distinctions in implementation science. Context All settings relevant to implementation science research will be included. Types of Evidence Sources Articles included in the title, abstract, and full-text reviews met the following criteria: (a) study focus: research apply group concept mapping methodology within an implementation science context; (b) publication type: original empirical studies with adequate methodological detail, including primary research articles, case studies, conference proceedings, and theses/dissertations; (c) publication date: no restrictions; (d) language: English or Chinese; and (e) availability: publicly accessible full-text sources. Exclusion criteria were: (a) publication types: reviews, commentaries, editorials, letters, opinion pieces, and textbooks; and (b) duplicates: secondary reports of the same study, with only the most complete report retained. Search Strategy Searches were conducted on December 29, 2024, across the following electronic databases from inception: PubMed, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), PsycINFO, Scopus, and EMBASE. We will also search the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Clinical trials, ProQuest, and GroupWisdom, a web-based platform commonly used to support group concept mapping studies, to locate grey literature. The search strategy will involve a combination of keywords and subject headings related to " Group Concept Mapping " and " Implementation Science ." As per the JBI methodology, an initial search of Pubmed was performed to find potentially relevant keywords and terms for building the final search strategy. The search was then be tailored to each database. The search strategy for PubMed is included in Supplement Table 1. We also examined the reference lists of all included research studies for additional resources. Key authors were contacted with requests to provide relevant full text papers if these are not available through the library/inter-library loan. Source of Evidence Selection Following database searches, all records were imported into Covidence(5) for automatic duplicate removal. Both the title/abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers (HH and LX), with a third reviewer (SRW) available to adjudicate any ambiguous cases. Each stage included documentation of the reasons for exclusion, ensuring transparency in the selection process. After screening was completed, the included articles were exported to Zotero (Version 7)(6) and Microsoft Excel for data extraction. Data Extraction A standardized data extraction form was developed and pilot-tested on a small sample of studies to ensure clarity, comprehensiveness, and consistency. Two reviewers (HH and LX) independently extracted data from all included studies and cross-verified each other’s entries, resolving discrepancies through discussion and consensus. Missing or unclear information was coded as "Not Reported" or "Unclear" to ensure transparent documentation. Data were extracted across four predefined domains: ①basic study characteristics; ②implementation-stage alignment, examined using the PEDALs framework as an analytic organizing structure(7); ③methodological characteristics of GCM use; and ④additional study outcomes and author-reported remarks. The PEDALs framework, which conceptualizes the implementation lifecycle into six stages—Problem identification, Evidence-based practice, Determinants, Action, Long-term use, and Scale and Scale-up, was used in this review to assess where and for which implementation tasks GCM has been applied. Definitions of each stage are provided in Table 2. Details of the data extraction framework and analytic dimensions are also summarized in Table 2. RESULTS Study Selection Figure 1 shows the flow chart of the studies' identification and selection, listing explicit reasons for exclusion. A systematic search of ten electronic databases yielded 1,564 references. After removing 302 duplicates, 1,262 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in the exclusion of 1,001 irrelevant records. The remaining 261 articles underwent full-text review, of which 126 were excluded due to wrong setting, wrong study design, inability to retrieve, or language restrictions. During data extraction, 12 additional studies were excluded (duplicates, textbooks, studies not including GCM, or reviews/commentaries), and four additional non-overlapping primary studies were identified from the reference lists of included review articles, resulting in a total of 125 studies included in this scoping review. Study Characteristics Temporal Trends and Growth of Publications Temporally, publications spanned three decades (1995–2024). Following sporadic early activity, annual output increased from 2015 onward, exceeding five studies per year consistently from 2016. The period 2019–2024 marked a phase of rapid growth, with 78 studies (62.4%)(2,8–84) published during these six years. Publication peaked in 2024 (n=22, 17.6%)(8–29). (Figure 2A) Geographic Distribution of Included Studies Geographically, studies were conducted across six continents, with pronounced concentration in North America (n=71, 48.3%)(8,9,11,13–17,20,24,29,31,32,34–36,38–40,43,45,47,50–53,56,59–64,66,67,70,73,75,76,78–80,82,84–111) and Europe (n=46, 31.3%)(18,23,25,27,30,33,37,42,44,46,49,58,68,69,77,83,112–119). Within North America, the United States contributed 54 studies (36.7%)(8,9,11,13–17,20,31,32,34,35,38–40,43,47,51,56,59,61–64,66,67,73,75,76,78–80,84–89,91–97,100,104,106–111) and Canada 16 (10.9%)(24,29,36,45,50,52,53,60,70,82,98,99,101–103,105). European activity spanned 18 countries, led by the Netherlands (n=10, 6.8%)(25,33,37,42,44,49,112,114,116,118), followed by Sweden (n=5, 3.4%)(46,58,77,83,112) and the United Kingdom(30,42,112,119), Denmark(18,42,69,115), Norway(23,42,113,117), and Italy(33,42,49,55) (each n=4, 2.7%). Other regions contributed fewer studies: Asia(2,12,28,41,48,54,120–122) and Oceania(10,21,26,72,81,123–126) each accounted for nine studies (6.1%), with Australia representing all Oceania entries; Africa(19,57,65,71,74,127–129) comprised eight studies (5.4%), including 3 multi-country Sub-Saharan initiatives(65,128,129); and Latin America contributed 4 studies (2.7%) from Mexico(90,130), Brazil(131), and the Caribbean region(22). Geographic diversification intensified markedly after 2019. Temporal trends in the United States paralleled the overall pattern, likely because its substantial contribution (n=54, 36.7%) dominated the sample, accelerating from 2015 and peaking at 9 studies in 2024 (Figure 2B and Figure 2C). -Insert Figure 2 here- Publication Journals In terms of publication journals, the included studies were predominantly published in core implementation science journals, particularly Implementation Science (7, 5.6%)(86,88,92,94,99,104,111) and Implementation Science Communications (6, 4.8%)(8,47,59,65,73,74). Other notable publication venues included BMC Health Services Research (5, 4.0%)(23,42,70,82,124), Health Research Policy and Systems (4, 3.2%)(27,68,80,123), International Journal of Medical Informatics (4, 3.2%)(37,71,116,118), and PLOS ONE (4, 3.2%)(20,22,112,122) (Supplementary Table 1). Study Design Characteristics and Use of GCM Regarding study design, 107 studies (85.6%)(2,8–12,14–37,39,41,44–50,52–57,59–78,80–89,92,93,95,97–104,108–110,112,114,116–118,120,121,123–131) applied GCM as the sole methodological approach, whereas 18 studies (14.4%)(13,38,40,42,43,58,79,91,94,96,105–107,111,113,115,119,122) adopted an embedded design where GCM constituted only one component of a multi-method process. For example, one study(38), aiming to promote equitable implementation for individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, adopted a three-phase structure. The first phase involved qualitative interviews to identify barriers and facilitators of equitable implementation; the second phase applied GCM to generate and prioritize actionable implementation strategies; and the third phase iteratively developed an implementation toolkit. Implementation Domains and Contexts of GCM Use Based on the stated research Topics, we identified seven primary thematic domains across the included studies. (1) Implementation Science Methods, Conceptualization, and Capacity Building (33 studies, 26.4%). This domain comprised studies in which GCM was used primarily for methodological, conceptual, or evaluative purposes in implementation science, rather than to address a specific clinical or service delivery problem. Subthemes included implementation evaluation(46,59,67,86,88,92,94,100,115), health systems(37,40,48,70,79,101,118), policy implementation(68,98,114,131), translational research(56,62,89,110), primary care(12,22,126), health services(73,80,124), implementation training and collaboration(84,87,106). (2) Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health accounted for 20 studies (16.0%), spanning substance adolescent health(16,27,47,50,52,61,95,105), maternal health(2,13,23,54,90,128), child health(9,25,36,113,121) and reproductive health(17). (3) Infectious Diseases and Cancer , also with 19 studies (15.2%), included cancer screening(30,32,44,99,102,112), cancer treatment(14,33,49,77,107), HIV(39,65,82,93) and HPV(8,15,24,64). (4) Mental Health consisted of 16 studies (12.8%), addressing mental health services(29,42,58,66,96,104,108,109,111) and substance use(11,20,28,38,43,122,125). (5) Chronic Disease Management represented 16 studies (12.8%), primarily focused on cardiovascular disease/hypertension(19,31,74,116,127,129), rehabilitation(53,69,72,103), diabetes(78,120), pain(35,75), chronic disease prevention(123)and stroke(41). (6) Vulnerable Populations and Health Equity included 13 studies (10.4%), covering low-income populations(51,57,71,85), rural and remote populations(34,45,97,130), socially marginalized populations(55,60,91) and people with disabilities(117,119). (7) Injury Prevention and Sports Health also comprised 10 studies (8.0%), including sports injuries(10,18,26), sports organization strategies(21,76), sports injury prevention(81,83) and violence prevention(63). (Table 3) Implementation Science Components Addressed by GCM Applications The 125 included studies varied in terms of the implementation science stages or components on which GCM was applied. To systematically characterize this variation, we mapped each study to stages of the implementation process using the PEDALs model as an analytical organizing structure. Most studies applied GCM to the determinants to implementation stage (94, 75.2%)(9–11,14,16–22,26–34,36,40–44,47–51,53–56,58,60–65,67–69,71,72,74–79,81,83–85,87–94,97–106,108–112,114,116–122,124,126,128–131), and 5 studies (4.0%)(34,87,94,97,119) addressed two stages of the model simultaneously. P - Problem: Challenges in Health or Healthcare The Problem stage of the PEDALs Model focuses on the identification of the real-world problem in health or healthcare that needs addressing. This stage concerns defining what problem requires action before decisions are made regarding EBP or implementation strategies. As shown in Table 5, none of the 125 included studies used GCM exclusively to identify or define a health problem. This finding suggests a limited application of GCM at the problem-identification stage. E – Evidence-Based/Informed Practice: the “Thing” to be implemented The Evidence-Based/Informed Practice stage represents the “thing” to be implemented, most commonly an EBP, intervention, program, or policy. Across the included literature, this stage encompassed several distinct activities: (1) development or refinement of innovative intervention; (2) adaptation of interventions to local contextual needs and constraints; (3) de-implementation of ineffective, low-value, or harmful practices; and (4) appraisal and prioritisation of existing intervention components. As shown in Table 5, only 14 studies (11.2%) primarily focused on this stage. Among them, seven studies addressed the development or refinement of innovative interventions. For instance, one study focuses on co-developing culturally sensitive interventions to address food insecurity during the first 1,000 days of life(13); and another one aimed to identify the most effective and feasible interventions to achieve more structured and standardised Electronic Health Records data documentation(37). Three studies focused on the adaptation of interventions to local contextual needs and constraints, with research aims including improving HPV vaccination delivery in safety-net clinics(37), distributing HPV self-sampling kits in non-traditional community settings such as hair salons(15), and localising existing breastfeeding promotion strategies to better fit specific contexts(2). One study addressed the appraisal and prioritisation of existing intervention components (37). Another study employed GCM to systematically organize and prioritize research priorities, to further inform the development of a comprehensive dissemination and implementation research agenda(107). Additionally, three studies addressed other related aspects: two of these focused on both the development or refinement of innovative interventions and the appraisal and prioritization of existing intervention components(59)(86), while one centered on both the development or refinement of innovative interventions and the adaptation of interventions to local contextual needs and constraints(96). D - Determinants to Implementation: Barriers and Facilitators The Determinants stage captures the barriers and facilitators that influence successful implementation and must be systematically examined once an EBP has been selected or optimised. As shown in Table 5, 90 of the 125 studies (72.0%) focused exclusively on the determinants to implementation stage. Importantly, determinants were also frequently examined in conjunction with other components of the implementation process; when such multi-component applications were considered, nearly four-fifths of all studies (75.2%) addressed implementation determinants, indicating that identifying determinants is the primary application of GCM within implementation science. To further characterise the types of determinants examined, studies were classified as focusing on barriers only, facilitators only, or both barriers and facilitators. A total of 80 studies(9,11,14,16,17,19–22,26–31,33,36,40–44,47–49,51,53–56,58,60–65,67–69,71,72,74–78,84,85,88–94,98,100–106,108–112,116–118,120,121,124,126,128–131) focused on both barriers and facilitators. These studies addressed diverse implementation contexts, such as identifying facilitators and barriers to engagement in medication treatment for opioid use disorder in Washington State, USA(20); assessing barriers and facilitators to oral and dental health screening among tobacco users seeking cessation advice(28); examining anticipated responses of sexual- and/or gender- minoritized individuals to a hypothetical nicotine reduction policy(11). Six studies focused exclusively on barriers to implementation, such as barriers to prostate cancer screening among African American men(32), barriers to accessing mental health services among immigrant youth in mid-sized Canadian cities(50), reasons for clinicians’ rejection of guideline recommendations when interacting with clinical decision support systems(79). Four studies focused exclusively on facilitators, such as facilitators for integrating injury prevention training into routine youth handball practice across multiple stakeholder levels(83), and facilitators of smoking cessation perceived by men from ethnic minority backgrounds(122). In addition, two studies combined the phase of determinants identification with the EBP determination (97) (87). For example, one study primarily focused on identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation, with secondary attention to the development or refinement of innovative implementation interventions, aiming to examine determinants of access to healthy and affordable food in rural U.S. communities while informing a feasible rural food policy research agenda(97). A - Action to Address the Determinants: Implementation Strategies The Action stage involves developing new or selecting and tailoring existing implementation strategies to address determinants identified. Of the 14 studies (11.2%) focusing on this stage, excluding three protocols(38,80,113), the remaining 11 studies primarily employed GCM to generate and prioritize implementation strategies. Across studies, GCM supported implementation strategy development through three recurring functional patterns. First, GCM was used to generate and prioritize large sets of potential implementation strategies through structured brainstorming, clustering, and rating exercises. Stakeholders—including service users, clinicians, managers, community representatives, and policymakers—collectively produced strategy domains (clusters) and prioritized strategies based on perceived importance and feasibility. This approach enabled transparent, data-informed selection of strategies in contexts such as person-centered care transformation [12], teen suicide screening in emergency departments [66], implementation of the ABCDEF bundle—a multicomponent, evidence-based ICU care framework encompassing pain assessment/prevention/management, spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, analgesia and sedation optimization, delirium assessment/prevention/management, early mobility, and family engagement[132], and rural health equity initiatives using digital technologies [45]. Second, GCM facilitated contextual adaptation and equity-oriented tailoring of implementation strategies. In several studies, stakeholders co-developed culturally and socially responsive strategies that addressed context-specific barriers such as stigma, trust, access, and structural inequities. Examples included improving cervical cancer screening among South Asian women [24], co-creating smoking cessation strategies for Aboriginal Australians [125], and operationalizing national medical assistance policies for indigent populations in Mali [57]. In these applications, GCM enabled strategies to be explicitly grounded in local values, lived experiences, and feasibility constraints. Third, GCM was used to integrate and extend existing implementation strategy frameworks. Some studies employed GCM to adapt and expand established taxonomies such as the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), generating context-specific strategy clusters and prioritization profiles [23]. Others combined GCM with theoretical or design frameworks, such as the Theoretical Domains Framework [70] or user-centered design principles [73], to create strategy domains. In addition, two studies combined the Determinants identification with the implementation strategy co-creation, linking the identification of barriers and facilitators with the subsequent development of strategies to address them. For instance, one of study aimed to identify priority areas for improving access to reproductive health services for women with disabilities affected by intimate partner violence, to develop strategies to enhance access and utilization, and to assess the feasibility of implementing the proposed strategies(119). L - Long-term Use of EBP in Practice Routines The Long-term use stage reflects two related but distinct meanings within the PEDALs Model. First, it concerns the sustained integration of EBPs into routine practice, emphasising sustainability and long-term sustainment beyond initial implementation. Second, it encompasses the assessment of implementation outcomes, such as acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, and penetration that indicate whether long-term uptake is attainable or achieved. As shown in Table 5, three studies (2.4%) focused on long-term use of EBPs in practice routines, but none of the studies explicitly assessed implementation outcomes. In the first study, the objective was to identify the conditions necessary to sustain the Healthy Primary School of the Future initiative by focusing on how to integrate health-promoting practices into the routine operations of schools(25). In the second study, the goal was to determine how to implement job crafting interventions in a way that ensures their effects are sustained and effectively integrated into daily work routines(46). In the third study, the focus was on understanding how to sustain and integrate a task-shifting strategy for hypertension into routine clinical practice in sub-Saharan Africa(127). s - Scale-up, Iteration, and Evaluation The s stage of the PEDALs Model encompasses later-phase processes of scale-up, iteration, and evaluation by study design. This stage includes (1) scaling up EBPs to broader populations or settings, (2) iteratively refining interventions and strategies based on ongoing learning and contextual feedback, and (3) rigorously evaluating implementation processes and outcomes using appropriate methodological approaches. As shown in Table 5, no studies applied GCM exclusively to this stage. GCM Methodological Characteristics Methodological References for the Use of GCM Among the 125 included studies, 80.0% (n = 100)(2,8–14,16–29,32–38,40–47,50–52,55,57,58,60–74,76,78–83,86–90,92–94,97,99–102,104,105,108,109,111–119,121–124,127–131) explicitly reported methodological references for the use of GCM. Five core sources dominated these methodological citations, ranked by frequency of citation: (1) the most frequently cited source was the methodological textbook Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation , edited by Kane and Trochim and published in 2007(132). Widely regarded as the foundational methodological manual for GCM, this volume was cited by most of GCM studies in implementation science (n = 55)(14,17,20,21,24,25,28,29,33–35,44–46,51,52,55,58,60,62,63,65,69,71,73,76,78,80–82,86–88,90,92,97,99–102,104,108,112,115–119,122,123,127–131); (2) Trochim’s seminal 1989 paper, An Introduction to Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation (133), was commonly referenced to establish the historical and theoretical foundations of GCM and was frequently cited alongside the 2007 textbook (n = 25)(14,28,29,33,35,45,60,62,69,71,82,86,90,99,102,104,108,112,115–117,123,128,130,131); (3) the 2005 article by Trochim and Kane, Concept mapping: An Introduction to Structured Conceptualization in Health Care (134), represented a critical bridge for the application of GCM within health care and implementation science by explicitly positioning GCM as a structured conceptualization method suited to complex health systems, and was cited by 16 studies(16,18,19,22,23,35,62,68,69,71,72,79,83,86,93,123); (4) Burke and colleagues’ 2005 publication, An Introduction to Concept Mapping as a Participatory Public Health Research Method (135), emphasized the participatory and public health, oriented nature of GCM and was frequently used in studies focusing on multi-stakeholder engagement, co-creation of implementation strategies, and policy-relevant research (n = 5)(9,42,43,111,117); and (5) the methodological rigor of GCM was most commonly supported by the pooled analysis conducted by Rosas and Kane in 2012, Quality and Rigor of the Concept Mapping Methodology (136), which addressed issues of reliability, validity, and methodological rigor and was often cited to respond to concerns regarding the scientific robustness of GCM (n = 4)(35,63,86,87). Theory, model and framework use 14 studies (11.2%) reported the use of explicit frameworks. These included the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)(9,16,42,47,74,80,130), Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)(16), health equity implementation frameworks, Complexity Theory(38), the Explore, Prepare, Implement, Sustain (EPIS) framework(16), the Behavioral Ecology Model (BEM)(122), the Andersen Model(119), and the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) process(99). Frameworks served two primary functions: during the preparation phase, they were introduced as conceptual “thinking checklists” to ensure comprehensive consideration without mandating strict application; during the interpretation phase, frameworks were overlaid onto final concept map clusters to contextualize findings. Conversely, several studies deliberately avoided the use of guiding frameworks. One study explicitly stated that, “to allow providers to generate their own ideas rather than constrain them within our preconceptions, we deliberately avoided specifying any theoretical propositions or models at the study’s outset, aligning with a more exploratory, data-driven approach” (27). Reporting of GCM Procedural Components GCM has been classically described as a multi-step participatory process. According to foundational methodological work by Trochim and colleagues(133), GCM is commonly operationalized through six core steps: (1) Preparation, including selecting the participants and developing the focus; (2) Generation of statements through brainstorming; (3) Structuring of statements by sorting and rating; (4) Representation of statements; including the statement list, cluster list, cluster naming, point map, cluster map, point rating map, and cluster rating map; (5) Interpretation of maps, and (6) Utilization of maps for planning and evaluation. Importantly, this six-step structure represents a canonical methodological framework rather than a rigid or mandatory protocol, and considerable variation in implementation and reporting has been noted across applied studies. Consistent with this flexibility, studies included in this scoping review varied substantially in how GCM procedures were described. For example, some studies described GCM as (1) brainstorming, in which specific ideas from stakeholders are stimulated by a focus prompt; (2) rating each item brainstormed by the entire group; and (3) grouping the brainstormed items into conceptual clusters(43). In addition, some studies separated the structuring of statements into two distinct steps, sorting and rating, while others did not explicitly label a preparation step but described participant recruitment procedures and the formulation of the focus prompt. For the purpose of this review, we therefore assessed the extent to which each of the six canonical GCM steps was explicitly reported. Of the 125 included articles, 25 (20.0%)(2,8,20,22,29,30,32,34,36,39–41,44,48,50,56,65,66,74,84,96,100,118,125,128) explicitly reported all six steps; most studies described a subset of steps, commonly omitting either the preparation step (3, 2.4%)(9,13,15) or the interpretation step (74, 59.2%)(10–12,14,17–19,21,23–28,33,35,37,43,45–47,49,51–53,55,57,59–64,68–73,76–78,81,83,85–95,97,99,101–104,107–110,112,115–117,122,124,127,129,131), resulting in five reported steps in 77 studies (61.6%), while six studies (4.8%)(31,38,42,80,114,119) described the first four steps. Additionally, 15 studies (12.0%)(54,58,67,75,79,82,98,105,106,111,113,120,121,123,126) did not explicitly report the GCM steps. I. Preparation Phase: Participant Selection and Focus Development Participant category GCM is designed to integrate diverse stakeholder perspectives to generate systematic and quantifiable conceptual frameworks and therefore typically includes a wide variety of relevant participants. Across the included studies, 66 (52.8%)(2,8–11,13–26,29,33–39,41–44,48,50,54,55,58,60,61,64–66,68,70–73,78,80,82,83,86,88,89,91,93,95,97,98,104,107,108,114,117,125,128,130) reported specific stakeholder categories, with the number ranging from 1 to 8, and the 25th and 75th percentiles at 2 and 4, respectively. For example, in the Health Kiosks in Markets project, which explored the potential of marketplace health kiosks to improve cardiovascular disease prevention services, involved nurses, healthcare workers, clinical staff, laboratory technicians, health promotion and public health personnel (n = 22), representatives from marketing and commerce (n = 10), and non-governmental and patient representatives (n = 3) (19). In addition, seven studies (5.6%)(10,36,50,78,82,104,117,127) employed homogeneous stakeholder groups. For instance, a study aimed at identifying the challenges faced by sports program providers in supporting physically inactive women in injury prevention and management involved only program initiators as GCM participants(10). Sample size Regarding sample size, studies included between 2 and 366 participants, with the 25th and 75th percentiles at 23 and 68, respectively. The most common sample size was 45, reported in six studies (4.8%)(24,49,65,67,87,119). However, because GCM is a multi-stage participatory method, the roles of participants, cognitive demands, and methodological requirements differ across phases (i.e., brainstorming, sorting, and rating), and individuals involved in the initial phase do not necessarily continue throughout subsequent stages. For example, in one study, 136 participants contributed to the brainstorming phase, yet only 38 (27.9%) took part in sorting and 83 (61.0%) engaged in rating(130). Accordingly, variation in participant numbers across phases is methodologically acceptable in GCM studies, and participation in early phases does not imply continued involvement in later stages. Based on our observations, most studies reported only the number of participants in the first phase as the overall sample size, likely because the initial brainstorming phase typically represents the broadest scope of stakeholder participation. Participant Recruitment and Engagement Concerning participant recruitment and engagement, only 51 studies (40.8%)(2,8,10,11,14,16,24,25,27–29,32,33,35,36,40,43–46,50–54,58–63,69–71,73,75,77,78,80,83,86–88,92,111,112,115,116,122,123,127) explicitly disclosed their recruitment procedures. The majority employed non-probability sampling strategies, notably purposive or snowball sampling, and recruited diverse stakeholders via SMS, email, or advertisements, with participant numbers ranging from several dozen to several hundred. Studies commonly stratified participants into multiple subgroups based on professional roles to capture inputs across different organizational levels and expertise domains. Furthermore, to encourage participation, studies often provided incentives to participants, such as gift cards ranging from USD 10-50 depending on the GCM phase(8,10,11,20,29,50,59,64,80,130), or monetary compensation ranging from USD 25-50(16,40,51,63,86). Only 21 studies (16.8%)(13,14,19,21,29,36,41,44,55,56,59,61,63,72,90,105,112,114,119,120,125) reported details on subgroup allocation during the idea generation phase. Several subgrouping strategies were identified. 1) The most common approach is to group participants based on stakeholder type. For example, the study examining gender and socio-ecological differences in stakeholder perceptions of athlete attrition within the Australian high-performance pathway system categorized participants into five socio-ecological levels: former first-tier athletes from a national institute (n = 3); stakeholders within athletes’ immediate interpersonal environment, such as coaches and support staff (n = 6); external to the high-performance system but supporting athletes, including college and university representatives (n = 3); administrators and decision-makers from regional, state, and national sporting organizations (n = 15); and federal-level policymakers (n = 3) (21). 2) Other studies grouped participants by study location, such as by country into three groups(55,112) or by township into four group(63). 3) In some cases, subgrouping was based on participation preference. For instance, participants self-selected whether to engage via face-to-face or telephone interview formats, either in group sessions or individually(36). Focus Development In the preparation phase, it is essential to define the focus of the brainstorming session, which will guide idea generation in the subsequent stage. Among the included studies, 28 (22.4%)(9,12,15,21,31,34,38,40,42,47,49,73,75,79,80,88,92,95,98,105,106,109,111,113,119–121,126) did not provide a prompt, whereas the remaining studies all included at least one prompt, with most studies (93, 74.4%) providing a single prompt, a few providing two prompts (3, 2.4%)(16,66,71), and one study (0.8%)(61) providing three prompts. As summarized in Table 4, studies that used prompt(s) employed a variety of prompt formats, which were categorized into seven types: (1) factor-identification oriented prompts , with the template "What are the factors influencing [behavior/implementation]?", such as "What do you need to provide contraceptive services in your pharmacy?" (17) and "What makes medication for opioid use disorder like buprenorphine (also known as Suboxone or Subutex) difficult to start or keep using?" (20), were used in 41 studies (32.8%)(14,17,19,20,22–26,30,32,33,36,41,46,48,50,56,60,64,72,81,82,90,91,96,97,99–104,108,112,115,117,124,127,129,130); (2) goal-action oriented prompts , with the template "To [achieve objective/improve indicator], we could...", for example “To increase HPV vaccination among adolescents (ages 9-13 years) in healthcare settings serving medically underserved communities, we can do the following..." (8) and "To successfully deliver the ABCDEF bundle on a daily basis in the ICU, a specific thing that should be in place or included is..." (35), appeared in 29 studies (23.2%)(2,8,18,27,29,35,37,39,52,54,57,59,62,63,68,70,74,77,78,85–87,93,107,114,116,122,123,125); (3) problem-solution oriented prompts , with the template "Methods to address [problem] are...", such as "What is a solution to tackle food insecurity among pregnant persons and families with children under 3 years old living in the West Las Vegas Promise Neighborhood?"(13) and "What are possible technology solutions that could address the health and well-being issues of people living with chronic illness in rural BC communities?"(45), were reported in six studies (4.8%)(10,13,45,55,58,84); (4) experience-reflection oriented prompts , with the template "From [experience/perspective], what do you think about...", for example "From your perspective, factors within reablement programs that support or hold back older adults and families are..." (53) and "Based on your experiences of the RSP/SSP, what challenges are there to designing, developing, and delivering a successful program to engage inactive and somewhat active people in sport or physical activity?"(76), were provided in six studies (4.8%)(44,53,67,69,76,83); (5) priority-ranking oriented prompts , "What are the most important [outcomes/elements] in [domain]?", such as "In advancing a program of research on sustainability, an important issue is..."(94) and "Please list at least ten specific opioid-related phenotypes that you would consider to be of high value from a patient care and research perspective"(43), were reported in four studies (3.2%)(43,94,110,131); (6) dual-dimension oriented prompt s , with the template "Facilitators for [behavior] are...; barriers are...", for example "What motivates and helps me to visit the dentist for an oral health check is..." [facilitators] and "I do not visit the dentist for an oral health check because..." [barriers](28), as well as "What is it that encouraged or stopped people from shopping at the Fresh To You mobile markets? Think about yourself, family, neighbors, neighborhoods, and the markets themselves."(51), appeared in four studies (3.2%)(28,51,65,128); and (7) conditional-hypothetical oriented prompts , with the template "If [condition changes], I would...", such as "If all cigarettes sold in the United States only had half the nicotine in them that they do now, a specific action I would take or a specific reaction I would have is..."(11) and "Professional practices in schools would be better informed by research if..."(89), were reported in three studies (2.4%)(11,89,118). -Insert Table 4 here- II. Generation Phase: Idea Generation and Brainstorming Procedures Generation phase involves the generation of ideas, which is most commonly conducted through brainstorming. Indeed, many studies explicitly referred to this phase as a “brainstorming” stage. Brainstorming was implemented using diverse formats, including one-to-one interviews, group discussions, and asynchronous online platforms where participants were invited to build upon previously submitted statements. In addition, some studies generated ideas by extracting statements from existing textual sources, such as annual reports, internal organizational memoranda, interview transcripts, or field notes(133). During the generation phase, participants are generally encouraged to produce a large number of statements. In group brainstorming settings, initial rounds may not fully capture all relevant ideas; therefore, additional rounds of idea generation are often conducted until no new statements emerge. However, only two studies explicitly reported the number of brainstorming rounds undertaken, documenting two rounds(16) and three rounds(43), respectively. Once data saturation was reached, research teams typically compiled all statements, removed duplicates, and merged overlapping or highly similar ideas. The consolidated list was then shared with participants to allow for further clarification or additions before proceeding to the subsequent GCM steps. Although a large volume of raw statements was often generated during brainstorming, the final number of consolidated statements was typically fewer than 100(133). For example, one study collected 632 statements from community forums and 868 statements from an online survey, yielding approximately 1,500 statements in total; after removing duplicates and overlapping content, these were condensed into 72 unique, representative statements(34). While 30 studies (24.0%)(24,30,31,38,40,42,46,47,54,57,58,67,73,79,80,89,96,98,100,103,105,106,111,113,119–121,126,128,131) did not report the number of final statements. Some studies reported statement counts separately by subgroup; for instance, one study reported 94 statements generated by participants at the Choices program site and 96 statements generated by participants at Boston University(109). Among the remaining 94 studies (75.2%)(2,8–23,25–29,32–37,39,41,43–45,48–53,55,56,59–66,68–72,74–78,81–88,90–95,97,99,101,102,104,107,108,110,112,114–118,122–125,127,129,130) that reported the total number of unique statements, 74 studies (59.2%)(2,8–12,14–21,23,26–29,32–35,37,41,43,45,48–53,55,56,59–63,66,68,70,71,74,76–78,81–86,88,90,92–95,97,99,101,102,110,112,114–116,122,123,125,127,129) generated 100 or fewer statements. Overall, the number of statements ranged from 15 to 406. III. Structuring Phase: Sorting, Clustering, and Rating of Statements Structuring phase involves structuring the statements to elucidate relationships among ideas and to rate them along one or more dimensions. This process typically includes sorting statements based on thematic similarity, resulting in the formation of clusters. Except for 26 studies (20.8%)(24,31,38,40,42,46,47,54,58,67,75,79,80,90,96,98,100,105,106,111,113,119–121,126,131) that did not report cluster information, most studies identified between 4 and 18 clusters. Regarding rating activities, 18 studies (14.4%)(15,31,39,40,50,54,58,66,67,75,79,98,105,106,113,120,121,126) did not report any rating procedures. Among those that did, the majority (47 studies, 37.6%)(8,12,17–19,21–23,25,26,29,30,32,41,43,45,46,48,53,64,65,68,70,71,73,74,77,78,80–84,91–93,95,101,110,111,116,118,123,125,127,129,131) assessed statements on both importance and feasibility. In addition, 22 studies (17.5%)(9,13,20,28,34,36,47,51,52,57,60,69,89,90,102,103,109,112,114,115,117,130) rated statements solely on importance, while 8 studies (6.4%)(33,49,56,94,96,100,104,108) rated importance and changeability. Beyond these commonly used dimensions, a range of other criteria were applied, including effectiveness(37,85,122), clarity(11,86,88), urgency(27,55), relevance(44,122), ease of overcoming(61,76), achievement(124), perceived priority(119) and sustainability(59). Except for 23 studies (18.4%)(14,15,30,31,39,40,50,54,58,66,67,75,77,79,82,94,98,105,106,113,120,121,126) that did not report specific rating scales, most studies (73, 58.4%)(2,10,12,13,16,18–26,28,29,32,33,35–37,41–43,46–49,51,52,57,60–64,69,71–73,78,80,85,87,89–93,95–97,100–104,108–111,114–119,123–125,127,129,131) employed a 5-point Lik. IV. Representation of GCM Outputs Representation During the representation phase, 80 studies (64.0%) reported the software used for data analysis. The majority employed Concept System Global MAX™ software (https://conceptsystemsglobal.com/index.php) or GroupWisdom (https://groupwisdom.com/groupconceptmapping) (66 studies, 82.5%)(8–11,13,14,16,18,20,21,25,29,32–35,37,38,40,44,46,47,49,51,53,55,56,60,62–65,68–70,72–74,76–78,81–83,85–88,91,92,97,99,103,104,108–111,116,117,123–125,128,130,131), while a smaller proportion used SPSS(14,28,41,71,45,47,72,80,102), R(12,59,61,21,66), or NVivo(95,98,105). Across the literature, detailed reporting on analytic duration, associated costs, and resource requirements was notably sparse. GCM results were typically presented using visual maps. These include maps that locate each statement as a point on a two-dimensional space (point maps), partition statements into clusters (cluster maps), and overlay averaged ratings either at the point level (point rating maps) or cluster level (cluster rating maps)(133). In addition, pattern match graphs and go-zone plots were commonly used. Together, these six visualizations are considered core GCM outputs. Among the 125 included studies, none presented all six visualizations; instead, studies reported only subsets of these figures (Table 6). The maximum number of figures presented in a single study was four (point map, cluster map, pattern match graph, and go-zone plot)(65). Overall, 25 studies (20.0%)(8,23,27,29,33,35,62,64,70–72,74,77,78,82,83,85,88,90,91,95,107,118,123,125) presented three figures, 34 (26.9%)(10,12,14,16–18,20,25,32,37,41,43–46,48,59–61,66,73,81,84,86,87,92,93,97,101,110,116,127,129,130) presented two figures, and 33 (26.1%)(2,9,11,13,19,21,22,24,26,28,34,36,39,40,49,50,63,68,69,76,94,99,100,102–104,108,109,112,115,117,122,128) presented a single figure, while 32 studies (25.6%)(15,30,31,38,42,47,51–58,67,75,79,80,89,96,98,105,106,111,113,114,119–121,124,126,131) did not present any visual maps. The most common combination of figures was the cluster map, cluster rating map, pattern match graph, and go-zone plot (24 studies, 19.2%)(8,20,25,33,59,60,62,66,70,72,73,77,78,82,83,85,87,88,91,95,107,123,125,130). Excluding studies without figures, among the remaining 93 studies (74.4%), cluster maps were the most frequently reported (67 studies, 72.0%)(8–14,18,20,25–29,32–35,37,40,41,43,48,50,59–66,70–74,76–78,81–88,91–95,97,99,101,107,110,115,116,118,123,125,127–130), followed by go-zone plots (59 studies, 63.4%)(2,8,10,12,16–20,22–25,27,33,36,37,39,41,43,45,48,59–62,65,66,68–74,77,78,81–88,90–92,95,97,107,116,118,123,125,127,129,130), pattern match graphs (37 studies, 39.8%)(8,20,21,23,25,29,33,35,44,49,59,60,62,64–66,70,72,73,77,78,82,83,85,87,88,90,91,93,95,100,107,110,122,123,125,130), cluster rating maps (12 studies, 12.9%)(16,17,32,36,90,102–104,108,109,112,117), point maps (9 studies, 9.7%)(23,29,35,46,64,65,71,74,118), and point rating maps (6 studies, 6.5%)(14,27,44–46,69). In addition, one study reported a number-of-clusters versus within-cluster sums of squares plot, which depicts the variability of observations within each cluster(23). -Insert Table 5 here- V. Interpretation phase Although 104 studies (83.2%) reported the Interpretation step in their methods sections, only 16 studies(2,8,20,23,24,29,34,36,45,46,48,56,97,100,116,118) explicitly described this stage in their results. At this stage, researchers typically convened an interpretive meeting with participants who had been involved in the earlier phases of the study. During these meetings, the results were presented and the analytic processes through which they were generated were explained, followed by structured discussions to allow participants to supplement, clarify, and refine the findings. While differences in perspectives were commonly observed among participants, these discussions generally led to a shared understanding and consensus, culminating in an agreed-upon concept map. VI. Utilization phase When conceptualization is conducted to inform planning, the final concept map may serve as a structural foundation for subsequent planning efforts. However, most included studies concluded at the stage of results presentation, with limited attention to utilization. Consequently, use of GCM outputs was often ambiguously reported and difficult to identify unless explicitly specified in the methods section. DISCUSSION This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the application of GCM within the realm of implementation science, elucidating prevailing patterns, strengths, and limitations of this approach. The findings of this scoping review reveal a highly uneven distribution of GCM applications across the stages of the implementation process, with the vast majority of studies concentrated in the Determinants stage, and minimal use in Problem definition, Long-term use and implementation outcomes, Scale-up and study design. This pattern suggests that GCM has primarily been adopted where its core strengths—structured stakeholder engagement, idea generation, and prioritization—align most directly with the analytic demands of the implementation process. This may because early-stage problem definition and EBP selection often rely on epidemiological data, literature synthesis, or expert consensus, rather than broad stakeholder mapping, which may explain the limited use of GCM in the problem identification. Conversely, later stages such as sustainment and scale-up emphasize longitudinal outcomes, which are more commonly addressed through trials or other study designs than through concept mapping. In contrast, the determinants stage explicitly centers on understanding context-specific barriers, facilitators, and priorities—questions that are well matched to GCM’s participatory and structuring functions—making GCM a natural methodological choice at this point in the implementation process. Researcher behavior and publication norms may further reinforce this concentration. GCM studies are more likely to be undertaken and published when stakeholder-driven idea generation is positioned as the primary analytic contribution, such as identifying determinants or co-designing implementation strategies. In contrast, GCM activities conducted during problem scoping or sustainment planning may be embedded within larger projects and reported only briefly, rather than as standalone studies. Together, these factors suggest that the observed stage imbalance reflects not methodological unsuitability, but rather selective alignment between GCM outputs, stage-specific evidence expectations, and prevailing publication practices. Future research could expand the use of GCM in underrepresented stages, particularly to support early stakeholder alignment and to structure sustainment and scale-up planning, while integrating complementary methods to meet stage-specific evaluation requirements. This review also identified a marked geographic concentration of GCM studies in high-income countries, with most conducted in North America and Europe and relatively few originating from low- and middle-income countries. This pattern suggests limited global diffusion of GCM and raises concerns regarding equity and representativeness in the current evidence base. One plausible contributor is the widespread reliance on proprietary GCM software: over 80% of included studies used commercial platforms such as Concept System Global MAX™ or GroupWisdom™, while reporting on software costs and analytic burden was uncommon. The financial, technical, and language-related barriers associated with these platforms may constrain uptake in resource-limited settings. Notably, a small number of studies demonstrated the feasibility of conducting GCM using open-source or lower-cost alternatives, including R-based analytic workflows and the dedicated open-source tool R-CMap. However, these approaches typically require greater statistical expertise and may lack the usability of dedicated commercial platforms. Taken together, these findings suggest that software accessibility may influence where GCM is adopted and published, underscoring the importance of continued development and clearer reporting of accessible analytic options to support broader global use. Despite GCM’s well-defined procedural framework, this review identified substantial inconsistency and incompleteness in reporting across studies. Only 20% of included studies explicitly documented all six core GCM phases, with omissions concentrated at the early Preparation phase and the final Utilization phase. While most studies reported middle analytic steps (e.g., brainstorming, sorting, and map generation), key information regarding how prompts were formulated, how stakeholders were selected, and—critically—how GCM outputs were used to inform implementation decisions was frequently absent. As a result, many studies presented concept maps as end products rather than as inputs into subsequent action. This pattern has important implications for implementation science. Insufficient reporting of Preparation limits interpretability and reproducibility, as early design decisions strongly shape the concepts generated and prioritized. More importantly, inadequate reporting of Utilization undermines GCM’s translational value: without clear documentation of how concept maps informed strategy selection, adaptation, or decision-making, GCM risks being positioned as a stand-alone research exercise rather than a practical implementation tool. In such cases, the method may appear disproportionately resource-intensive relative to its observable impact, reinforcing perceptions of GCM as a “fancy” methodological add-on rather than a mechanism for actionable change. To address these gaps, we developed a review-derived GCM reporting checklist (Supplementary Material) that specifies minimum reporting elements across all phases, with particular emphasis on Preparation and Utilization. The checklist is intended as a pragmatic, evidence-informed tool to support transparent reporting and to make explicit the pathway from stakeholder-generated concepts to implementation-relevant actions. Although not a formal consensus guideline, it responds directly to deficiencies identified in this review and provides a foundation for future consensus-based reporting standards. This review confirms that GCM offers several distinctive strengths for implementation science, particularly its capacity to engage diverse stakeholders in the co-production of structured and prioritized representations of complex implementation problems. By combining participatory input with quantitative structuring, GCM can minimize dominance by individual experts, promote shared meaning and ownership across stakeholder groups, and translate qualitative insights into visual outputs that are accessible to decision-makers. In addition, GCM enables the purposeful inclusion of stakeholders across geographic regions, organizational levels, and professional disciplines, supporting more inclusive and transparent implementation planning. At the same time, important methodological and practical limitations were consistently reported across studies. Most GCM applications relied on small, non-random samples, reflecting the time- and resource-intensive nature of the method and raising concerns about reliability, validity, and generalizability. Participant burden—particularly during cognitively demanding sorting and rating tasks—was frequently associated with attrition, with one study reporting that only 40% of participants completed the full mapping process(11). Such attrition may introduce participation bias, as perspectives from less-engaged or time-constrained stakeholders remain underrepresented. In addition, while GCM is less resource-intensive than in-depth interviews, it prioritizes breadth over depth and offers limited capacity to explore novel or nuanced concepts. The method primarily captures self-reported perceptions of barriers and facilitators, which function as sense-making representations that may vary across organizational contexts and do not always correspond directly to observed practice. Further constraints include language requirements that may exclude non-native speakers and the potential for brainstorming phases to be influenced by more vocal participants. Taken together, GCM’s value lies in structuring and prioritizing stakeholder knowledge to inform implementation decision-making, while its limitations underscore the importance of integrating GCM with complementary methods—such as qualitative interviews, surveys, or hybrid effectiveness–implementation designs—to deepen interpretation and support evaluation. Improving recruitment, retention, and reporting practices, including transparent documentation of resource requirements and participation patterns, will be essential to ensuring that GCM remains both methodologically rigorous and practically relevant in implementation science. CONCLUSION This scoping review shows that GCM occupies a distinctive but currently underutilized role in implementation science. To date, GCM has been used predominantly to structure and prioritize implementation determinants, with far more limited application to later-stage tasks such as strategy selection, sustainment planning, and scale-up. When intentionally designed and explicitly linked to implementation decisions, GCM can support stakeholder alignment, contextual tailoring, and transparent prioritization. However, inconsistent reporting—particularly regarding preparation and utilization—often obscures how GCM outputs inform action. To realize its full potential, future implementation research should position GCM as a decision-support method rather than a stand-alone analytic exercise, integrate it with complementary designs, and explicitly document its contribution to implementation planning and outcomes. References Group Concept Mapping - Sustainability Methods [Internet]. [cited 2025 Nov 25]. Available from: https://sustainabilitymethods.org/index.php/Group_Concept_Mapping Thepha T, Marais D, Bell J, Muangpin S. Concept mapping to reach consensus on a 6-month exclusive breastfeeding strategy model to improve the rate in Northeast Thailand. Maternal & child nutrition. 2019;15(4):e12823. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022 Apr;20(4):953–68. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467–73. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence Systematic Review Software [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://www.covidence.org Corporation for Digital Scholarship. Zotero [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://www.zotero.org Xu D (Roman), Samu GC, Chen J. Advancing mental health service delivery in low-resource settings. The Lancet Global Health. 2024 Apr;12(4):e543–5. Tsui J, Shin M, Sloan K, Mackie TI, Garcia S, Fehrenbacher AE, et al. Use of concept mapping to inform a participatory engagement approach for implementation of evidence-based HPV vaccination strategies in safety-net clinics. Implementation science communications. 2024;5(1):71. Stamatakis KA, Shrestha A, Biggs J, Jimenez PN, Pendley C, Francioni A, et al. Identifying and Prioritizing Factors to Improve Implementation of an Evidence-Based Program for Child Maltreatment Prevention in Rural Missouri Communities. Glob Implement Res Appl. 2024;4(4):371–80. Staley K, Donaldson A, Mosler AB, O’Halloran P, Seal E, Forsyth A, et al. Understanding the challenges of injury in providing sport programmes for physically inactive women: concept mapping insights from programme deliverers. Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention. 2024;30(5):400–9. Sawyer-Mays AN, Combs M, Anbil A, Rudy AK, Lee JGL, Breland A, et al. Reactions to a hypothetical reduced nicotine content cigarette policy among sexual- and gender-minoritized communities: a concept mapping study. Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco [Internet]. 2024;(drz, 9815751). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=medp&DO=10.1093%2fntr%2fntae275https://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:medp&genre=article&id=pmid:39572868&id=doi:10.1093%2Fntr%2Fntae275&issn=1462-2203&volume=&issue=&spag Saw PS, Balqis-Ali NZ, Quek KF, Ahmad B, Fun WH, Sararaks S, et al. Organizational strategies in promoting person-centered primary care: A participatory concept mapping study. International Journal of Healthcare Management. 2024;17(3):517–27. Saragosa AC, Flatt JD, Buccini G. Using concept mapping to co-create implementation strategies to address maternal-child food insecurity during the first 1000 days of life. Maternal & child nutrition. 2024;(101201025):e13739. Ramanadhan S, Cruz JL, Weese M, Kirk S, Rivard MK, Eisenkraft A, et al. Differing conceptual maps of skills for implementing evidence-based interventions held by community-based organization practitioners and academics: A multidimensional scaling comparison. Translational behavioral medicine [Internet]. 2024;(101554668). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=medp&DO=10.1093%2ftbm%2fibae051https://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:medp&genre=article&id=pmid:39566021&id=doi:10.1093%2Ftbm%2Fibae051&issn=1613-9860&volume=&issue=&spag Palmer KNB, Mantina NM, Adegboyega A, Sokale IO, Pryor K, Suero-Davis A, et al. Abstract B089: A community-based participatory approach to developing a salon-based HPV self-collection intervention. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2024 Sept 21;33(9_Supplement):B089–B089. Okamura KH, Palafu T, An K, Marshall SM, Chin SK, Stern KA, et al. “Allowing space for voice...all our voices:” Understanding Ho’ouna Pono implementation through educational leadership perspectives in rural Hawai’i schools. School mental health. 2024;16(3):793–807. Newlon JL, Campi JA, Rafie S, Meredith AH. Determining user implementation needs for pharmacist-prescribed contraception using concept mapping: A participatory, multiple stakeholder approach. Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy. 2024;16(9918266300706676):100525. Luteberget LS, Donaldson A, Andersen LN, Roos EM, Moller M. The HAPPY concept mapping study: “To prevent injuries in young handball players it’s important to...” - Perceptions among stakeholders. Journal of science and medicine in sport [Internet]. 2024;(c54, 9812598). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=medp&DO=10.1016%2fj.jsams.2024.09.004https://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:medp&genre=article&id=pmid:39353839&id=doi:10.1016%2Fj.jsams.2024.09.004&issn=1878-1861&volume= Kaduka L, Olale J, Mutai J, Christelle E, Mbuka J, Ochieng R, et al. Readiness of primary healthcare and community markets for joint delivery of cardiovascular disease prevention services in Kenya: an observational feasibility study of Health Kiosks in Markets (HEKIMA). BMJ open. 2024;14(11):e081993. Gullahorn B, Kuo I, Robinson AM, Bailey J, Loken J, Taggart T. Identifying facilitators and barriers to the uptake of medication for opioid use disorder in Washington, DC: A community-engaged concept mapping approach. PloS one. 2024;19(7):e0306931. Guevara SA, Donaldson A, Keegan RJ, Appaneal RN, Smyth EA, Waddington G, et al. Gender and socioecological level differences in stakeholders’ perceptions of athlete attrition factors in an Australian high-performance pathway system. Journal of science and medicine in sport. 2024;27(3):197–203. Gobin R, Thomas T, Goberdhan S, Sharma M, Nasiiro R, Emmanuel R, et al. Readiness of primary care centres for a community-based intervention to prevent and control noncommunicable diseases in the Caribbean: A participatory, mixed-methods study. PloS one. 2024;19(4):e0301503. Drozd F, Pettersen Sandtro H, Leksbo TS, Haga SM, Jacobsen H, Storksen HT. Identifying and developing strategies for implementation of a guided internet- and mobile-based infant sleep intervention in well-baby and community mental health clinics using group concept mapping. BMC health services research. 2024;24(1):175. Devotta K, O’Campo P, Bender J, Lofters AK. Important and Feasible Actions to Address Cervical Screening Participation amongst South Asian Women in Ontario: A Concept Mapping Study with Service Users and Service Providers. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont). 2024;31(7):4038–51. Conjaerts M, Stoyanov S, Edelman E, Kirschner P, de Groot R. Ensuring a sustainable and healthy primary school of the future: Finding answers through group concept mapping. Health Education Journal. 2024;83(5):560–73. Carmichael MA, Roberts AH, Donaldson A, Clarke AC. Implementing menstrual cycle tracking: A pilot concept mapping study investigating considerations of coaches, support staff, and female athletes. Journal of science and medicine in sport. 2024;27(8):557–64. Bosakova L, Dankulincova Veselska Z, Filakovska Bobakova D. How to improve the system of care for adolescents with emotional and behavioural problems from the perspective of care providers: a concept mapping approach. Health research policy and systems. 2024;22(1):9. Alsoghier A, Alnutaifi A, Alotaibi O, Alotaibi A, Alharbi A, Almubarak N, et al. Barriers and facilitators for oral health screening among tobacco users: a mixed-methods study. BMC oral health. 2024;24(1):306. Ahmad F, Culley L, Baldeo N, Haque KA, Suleman A. Concept Mapping the Ways to Support Mental Health and Mental Well-being of Canadian Racialized and Immigrant Communities. Journal of immigrant and minority health [Internet]. 2024;(101256527). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=medp&DO=10.1007%2fs10903-024-01647-whttps://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:medp&genre=article&id=pmid:39576366&id=doi:10.1007%2Fs10903-024-01647-w&issn=1557-1912&volume=&i Zaman M, de Vale ML, Coultas C, Goff L, Mernagh-Iles A, L’Esperance V, et al. Factors affecting the delivery of community-based salon interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease and breast cancer among ethnically diverse women in South London: a concept-mapping approach. Lancet (London, England). 2023;402 Suppl 1(2985213r, l0s, 0053266):S96. Williams B, DeFosset A, Reddy V, Wynn M, Blunt K, Rosas S, et al. ORGANIZATIONAL ASSETS AND BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCE-BASED CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PROGRAMMING IN RURAL AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES: EARLY FINDINGS OF AN INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY-ENGAGED ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING PROCESS. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2023;38((Williams B.) Social Medicine-Center for Health Equity Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States(DeFosset A.) Social Medicine, Center for Health Equity Research, UNC Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill,):S193. Tipre M, Hardy C, Bowman T, Glover M, Gullet P, Baity D, et al. Concept Mapping with Black Men: Barriers to Prostate Cancer Screening and Solutions. Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education. 2023;38(6):1808–15. Simoes Correa Galendi J, Siefen AC, Moretti DM, Yeo SY, Grull H, Bratke G, et al. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Painful Bone Metastases in Europe, A Group Concept Mapping Study. International journal of environmental research and public health [Internet]. 2023;20(2). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med23&DO=10.3390%2fijerph20021084https://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:med23&genre=article&id=pmid:36673840&id=doi:10.3390%2Fijerph20021084&issn=1660-4601&volume=20&issue Shrestha A, Stamatakis K, Ballard J, Burgess A, Baker E. Engaging rural communities to incorporate social determinants in developing strategies to improve access to health care in the Missouri Bootheel counties. Rural and remote health. 2023;23(1):7678. Mion LC, Tan A, Brockman A, Tate JA, Vasilevskis EE, Pun BT, et al. An Exploration of Critical Care Professionals’ Strategies to Enhance Daily Implementation of the Assess, Prevent, and Manage Pain; Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials; Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; Ear. Critical Care Explorations. 2023;5(3):e0872. Kuschke S, Moodie S, Kirubalingam K, O’Hagan R, Glista D. Parents’ Perceptions of the Factors Influencing the Uptake of Remote Pediatric Hearing Aid Support: Development of a Conceptual Framework. JMIR pediatrics and parenting. 2023;6(101727244):e47358. Klappe ES, Joukes E, Cornet R, de Keizer NF. Effective and feasible interventions to improve structured EHR data registration and exchange: A concept mapping approach and exploration of practical examples in the Netherlands. International journal of medical informatics. 2023;173(ct4, 9711057):105023. Gaba A, LoVette A, Pridgen B, Taylor M, Woodward E, Rosal MC, et al. Identifying strategies to advance equitable implementation of co-occurring mental health and substance use disorder treatment in drug treatment courts: A study protocol. Journal of clinical and translational science. 2023;7(1):e80. Brooks R, Rosenberg-Carlson E, Nieto O, Uskup D, Morales K. Developing Implementation Strategies to Enhance PrEP Delivery to Immigrant Latino Men who have Sex with Men. Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care. 2023;22((Brooks R.; Rosenberg-Carlson E.; Nieto O.; Uskup D.; Morales K.) UCLA Department of Family Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, United States):22–3. Birken SA, Wagi CR, Peluso AG, Kegler MC, Baloh J, Adsul P, et al. Toward a more comprehensive understanding of organizational influences on implementation: the organization theory for implementation science framework. Frontiers in health services. 2023;3(9918334887706676):1142598. Zhang X, Zhao J, Li X, Yan L, Hao Y, Liu J. Unfolding and characterizing the barriers and facilitators of scaling-up evidence-based interventions from the stakeholders’ perspective: a concept mapping approach. JBI evidence implementation. 2022;20(2):117–27. Vis C, Kleiboer A, Mol M, Pedersen CD, Finch T, Smit J, et al. Organisational implementation climate in implementing internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy for depression. BMC health services research. 2022;22(1):720. Taylor RA, Fiellin D, D’Onofrio G, Venkatesh A. Identifying opioid-related electronic health record phenotypes for emergency care research and surveillance: An expert consensus driven concept mapping process. Substance abuse. 2022;43(1):841–7. Sijben J, Rainey L, Fitzgerald RC, Wani SB, Kolb JM, Peters Y, et al. DUTCH, UK AND US PROFESSIONALS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SCREENING FOR BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS AND ESOPHAGEAL ADENOCARCINOMA: A CONCEPT MAPPING STUDY. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(7):S-723. Seaton CL, Rondier P, Rush KL, Li EPH, Plamondon K, Pesut B, et al. Community stakeholder-driven technology solutions towards rural health equity: A concept mapping study in Western Canada. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2022;25(6):3202–14. Roczniewska M, Hedberg Rundgren E, Hasson H, Bakker AB, von Thiele Schwarz U. How Should Job Crafting Interventions Be Implemented to Make Their Effects Last? Protocol for a Group Concept Mapping Study. International journal of environmental research and public health [Internet]. 2022;19(21). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=med22&DO=10.3390%2fijerph192113922https://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:med22&genre=article&id=pmid:36360800&id=doi:10.3390%2Fijerph192113922&issn=1660-4601&volume=19&iss Okamura KH, Okamoto SK, Marshall SM, Chin SK, Garcia PM, Powell BJ, et al. Ho’ouna Pono implementation: applying concept mapping to a culturally grounded substance use prevention curriculum in rural Hawai’i schools. Implementation science communications. 2022;3(1):111. Hosseini N, Mostafavi SM, Zendehdel K, Eslami S. Factors affecting clinicians’ adherence to principles of diagnosis documentation: A concept mapping approach for improved decision-making. Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia. 2022;51(3):149–58. Galendi J, Siefen AC, Moretti D, Yeo SY, Bratke G, Grüll H, et al. Factors Influencing the Uptake of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Painful Bone Metastases in Europe: A Group Concept Mapping Study. Value in Health. 2022;25(12):S385. Finnigan C, Brown J, Al-Adeimi M, Al-Abed R. Barriers to Accessing Mental Health Services by Migrant Youth. Community mental health journal. 2022;58(6):1101–11. Dulin A, Mealy R, Whittaker S, Cardel M, Wang J, Risica PM, et al. Identifying Barriers to and Facilitators of Using a Mobile Fruit and Vegetable Market Intervention Delivered to Low-Income Housing Sites: A Concept Mapping Study. Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education. 2022;49(1):159–68. Cook KA, Bergeron K. Palliative care for young adults with life-limiting conditions: public health recommendations. BMJ supportive & palliative care. 2022;12(e2):e256–63. Ashe MC, Azim FT, Ariza-Vega P, Burns J, Clemson L, Grover S, et al. Determinants of implementing reablement into research or practice: A concept mapping study. Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy. 2022;27(3):e1949. Thepha T, Marais D, Bell J, Muangpin S. The Evaluation of Training for Health-Care Professionals and Community Leaders Regarding 6-Month Exclusive Breastfeeding in Northeast Thailand. The Journal of perinatal education. 2021;30(2):71–7. Svobodova I, Filakovska Bobakova D, Bosakova L, Dankulincova Veselska Z. How to improve access to health care for Roma living in social exclusion: a concept mapping study. International journal for equity in health. 2021;20(1):61. Sommerfeld DH, Granholm E, Holden J, Seijo C, Rapoport CS, Mueser KT, et al. Concept mapping study of stakeholder perceptions of implementation of cognitive-behavioral social skills training on assertive community treatment teams. Psychological services. 2021;18(1):33–41. Seppey M, Touré L, Ridde V. Defining an action-research’s content to improve a policy supporting indigents’ health in Mali: A concept mapping. Journal of Global Health Reports [Internet]. 2021;5. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85132123342&doi=10.29392%2f001c.21956&partnerID=40&md5=eec466df11037a48de236e10ece51a71 Richter Sundberg L, Christianson M, Wiklund M, Hurtig AK, Goicolea I. How can we strengthen mental health services in Swedish youth clinics? A health policy and systems study protocol. BMJ open. 2021;11(10):e048922. Malone S, Prewitt K, Hackett R, Lin JC, McKay V, Walsh-Bailey C, et al. The Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool: measuring organizational capacity to promote sustainability in healthcare. Implementation science communications. 2021;2(1):77. Mahabir DF, O’Campo P, Lofters A, Shankardass K, Salmon C, Muntaner C. Experiences of everyday racism in Toronto’s health care system: a concept mapping study. International Journal for Equity in Health [Internet]. 2021;20(1). Available from: http://www.embase.j.sjuku.top/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L2010744150&from=export Jenkins AM, Burns D, Horick R, Spicer B, Vaughn LM, Woodward J. Adolescents and Young Adults With Spina Bifida Transitioning to Adulthood: A Comprehensive Community-Based Needs Assessment. Academic pediatrics. 2021;21(5):858–67. Fede J, Kogut SJ, Hayward A, Stevenson JF, Willey-Temkin C, Fournier H, et al. Improving the quality and quantity of clinical and translational research statewide: An application of group concept mapping. Journal of clinical and translational science. 2021;5(1):e70. Ast RS, Banyard VL, Burnham J, Edwards KM. Community Conversations on Relationship Violence: Town Variations in Prevention Perceptions through Concept Mapping. American journal of community psychology. 2021;67(3–4):353–63. Askelson N, Ryan G, McRee AL, Farris PE, Shannon J, Hanson J, et al. Using Concept Mapping to Identify Opportunities for HPV Vaccination Efforts: Perspectives from the Midwest and West Coast. Evaluation and program planning. 2021;89(7801727, eob):102010. Aarons GA, Reeder K, Sam-Agudu NA, Vorkoper S, Sturke R. Implementation determinants and mechanisms for the prevention and treatment of adolescent HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: concept mapping of the NIH Fogarty International Center Adolescent HIV Implementation Science Alliance (AHISA) initiative. Implement Sci Commun [Internet]. 2021 Dec [cited 2025 July 18];2(1). Available from: https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43058-021-00156-3 Vaughn LM, Sunny CE, Lindquist-Grantz R, King C, Brent D, Boyd S, et al. Successful Suicide Screening in the Pediatric Emergency Department: Youth, Parent, Researcher, and Clinician Perspectives. Archives of suicide research : official journal of the International Academy for Suicide Research. 2020;24(sup1):124–41. Pruett JL, Weigel EG. Concept Map Assessment Reveals Short-Term Community-Engaged Fieldwork Enhances Sustainability Knowledge. CBE life sciences education. 2020;19(3):ar38. Noel Racine A, Garbarino JM, Corrion K, D’Arripe-Longueville F, Massiera B, Vuillemin A. Perceptions of barriers and levers of health-enhancing physical activity policies in mid-size French municipalities. Health research policy and systems. 2020;18(1):62. Nielsen KT, la Cour K, Christensen JR, Pilegaard MS, von Bulow C, Brandt A, et al. Lessons learned about occupation-focused and occupation-based interventions: A synthesis using group concept mapping methodology. Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy. 2020;27(7):481–92. Kwok EYL, Moodie STF, Cunningham BJ, Oram Cardy JE. Selecting and tailoring implementation interventions: a concept mapping approach. BMC health services research. 2020;20(1):385. Kabukye JK, de Keizer N, Cornet R. Elicitation and prioritization of requirements for electronic health records for oncology in low resource settings: A concept mapping study. International journal of medical informatics. 2020;135(ct4, 9711057):104055. Ebrahimi-Madiseh A, Eikelboom RH, Bennett RJ, Upson GS, Friedland PL, Swanepoel DW, et al. What Influences Decision-Making for Cochlear Implantation in Adults? Exploring Barriers and Drivers From a Multistakeholder Perspective. Ear and hearing. 2020;41(6):1752–63. Dopp AR, Parisi KE, Munson SA, Lyon AR. Aligning implementation and user-centered design strategies to enhance the impact of health services: results from a concept mapping study. Implementation science communications. 2020;1(101764360):17. Aifah A, Onakomaiya D, Iwelunmor J, Oladele D, Gbajabiamila T, Obiezu-Umeh C, et al. Nurses’ perceptions on implementing a task-shifting/sharing strategy for hypertension management in patients with HIV in Nigeria: a group concept mapping study. Implementation science communications. 2020;1(101764360):58. Thies KM, Anderson D, Beals-Reid C. Project ECHO Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Analysis of Recommendations by Expert Faculty and the Process of Knowledge Translation. The Journal of continuing education in the health professions. 2019;39(3):194–200. Staley K, Donaldson A, Randle E, Nicholson M, O’Halloran P, Nelson R, et al. Challenges for sport organisations developing and delivering non-traditional social sport products for insufficiently active populations. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 2019;43(4):373–81. Smith F, Gunnarsdottir KA, Genell A, McLinden D, Vaughn L, Garelius H, et al. Evaluating the implementation and use of the regional cancer plan in Western Sweden through concept mapping. International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care. 2019;31(7):44–52. Phad A, Johnston S, Tabak RG, Mazzucca S, Haire-Joshu D. Developing priorities to achieve health equity through diabetes translation research: a concept mapping study. BMJ open diabetes research & care. 2019;7(1):e000851. Jones BE, Collingridge DS, Vines CG, Post H, Holmen J, Allen TL, et al. CDS in a Learning Health Care System: Identifying Physicians’ Reasons for Rejection of Best-Practice Recommendations in Pneumonia through Computerized Clinical Decision Support. Applied clinical informatics. 2019;10(1):1–9. Dopp AR, Parisi KE, Munson SA, Lyon AR. Integrating implementation and user-centred design strategies to enhance the impact of health services: protocol from a concept mapping study. Health research policy and systems. 2019;17(1):1. Donaldson A, Callaghan A, Bizzini M, Jowett A, Keyzer P, Nicholson M. A concept mapping approach to identifying the barriers to implementing an evidence-based sports injury prevention programme. Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention. 2019;25(4):244–51. Antoniou T, Mishra S, Matheson F, Smith-Merrill D, Challacombe L, Rowe J, et al. Using concept mapping to inform the development of a transitional reintegration intervention program for formerly incarcerated people with HIV. BMC health services research. 2019;19(1):761. Ageberg E, Bunke S, Lucander K, Nilsen P, Donaldson A. Facilitators to support the implementation of injury prevention training in youth handball: A concept mapping approach. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. 2019;29(2):275–85. Aarons GA, Seijo C, Green AE, Moullin JC, Hasson H, von Thiele Schwarz U, et al. Fostering international collaboration in implementation science and research: a concept mapping exploratory study. BMC research notes. 2019;12(1):778. Velonis A, Forst L. Outreach to Low-Wage and Precarious Workers: Concept Mapping for Public Health Officers. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine. 2018;60(11):e610–7. Birken SA, Rohweder CL, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Scott J, Leeman J, et al. T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implementation science : IS. 2018;13(1):143. Tabak RG, Padek MM, Kerner JF, Stange KC, Proctor EK, Dobbins MJ, et al. Dissemination and Implementation Science Training Needs: Insights From Practitioners and Researchers. American journal of preventive medicine. 2017;52(3 Suppl 3):S322–9. Powell BJ, Stanick CF, Halko HM, Dorsey CN, Weiner BJ, Barwick MA, et al. Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping. Implementation science : IS. 2017;12(1):118. Dagenais C, Pinard R, St-Pierre M, Briand-Lamarche M, Cantave AK, Peladeau N. Using concept mapping to identify conditions that foster knowledge translation from the perspective of school practitioners. Research Evaluation. 2016;25(1):70–8. Becerril-Montekio V, Alcalde-Rabanal J, Darney BG, Orozco-Nunez E. Using systematized tacit knowledge to prioritize implementation challenges in existing maternal health programs: implications for the post MDG era. Health policy and planning. 2016;31(8):1031–8. Weinstein LC, LaNoue M, Hurley K, Sifri R, Myers R. Using Concept Mapping to Explore Barriers and Facilitators to Breast Cancer Screening in Formerly Homeless Women with Serious Mental Illness. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved. 2015;26(3):908–25. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implementation science : IS. 2015;10(101258411):109. Szaflarski M, Vaughn LM, McLinden D, Wess Y, Ruffner A. Using concept mapping to mobilize a Black faith community to address HIV. International public health journal. 2015;7(1):117–30. Proctor E, Luke D, Calhoun A, McMillen C, Brownson R, McCrary S, et al. Sustainability of evidence-based healthcare: research agenda, methodological advances, and infrastructure support. Implementation science : IS. 2015;10(101258411):88. L Allen M, Schaleben-Boateng D, Davey CS, Hang M, Pergament S. Concept Mapping as an Approach to Facilitate Participatory Intervention Building. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2015;9(4):599–608. Granholm E, Holden JL, Sommerfeld D, Rufener C, Perivoliotis D, Mueser K, et al. Enhancing assertive community treatment with cognitive behavioral social skills training for schizophrenia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16(101263253):438. Johnson DB, Quinn E, Sitaker M, Ammerman A, Byker C, Dean W, et al. Developing an agenda for research about policies to improve access to healthy foods in rural communities: a concept mapping study. BMC public health. 2014;14(100968562):592. Masse LC, Naiman D, Naylor PJ. From policy to practice: implementation of physical activity and food policies in schools. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity. 2013;10(101217089):71. Lobb R, Pinto AD, Lofters A. Using concept mapping in the knowledge-to-action process to compare stakeholder opinions on barriers to use of cancer screening among South Asians. Implementation science : IS. 2013;8(101258411):37. Green AE, Fettes DL, Aarons GA. A concept mapping approach to guide and understand dissemination and implementation. The journal of behavioral health services & research. 2012;39(4):362–73. Ahmad F, Norman C, O’Campo P. What is needed to implement a computer-assisted health risk assessment tool? An exploratory concept mapping study. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2012;12(101088682):149. Ahmad F, Mahmood S, Pietkiewicz I, McDonald L, Ginsburg O. Concept mapping with South Asian immigrant women: barriers to mammography and solutions. Journal of immigrant and minority health. 2012;14(2):242–50. Poost-Foroosh L, Jennings MB, Shaw L, Meston CN, Cheesman MF. Factors in client-clinician interaction that influence hearing aid adoption. Trends in amplification. 2011;15(3):127–39. Green AE, Aarons GA. A comparison of policy and direct practice stakeholder perceptions of factors affecting evidence-based practice implementation using concept mapping. Implementation Science [Internet]. 2011;6(1). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-80052597025&doi=10.1186%2f1748-5908-6-104&partnerID=40&md5=c42273398c644bba1df8dbab48231b48 Skinner K, Hanning RM, Tsuji LJS. Barriers and supports for healthy eating and physical activity for First Nation youths in northern Canada. International journal of circumpolar health. 2006;65(2):148–61. Dolcourt JL, Zuckerman G, Warner K. Learners’ decisions for attending Pediatric Grand Rounds: a qualitative and quantitative study. BMC medical education. 2006;6(101088679):26. Concept Mapping of Implementation Research Priorities in Rural Cancer Control: A Two-Phased Project. 2018; Aarons GA, Wells RS, Zagursky K, Fettes DL, Palinkas LA. Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Mental Health Agencies: A Multiple Stakeholder Analysis. Am J Public Health. 2009 Nov;99(11):2087–95. Shern DL, Trochim WMK, LaComb CA. The use of concept mapping for assessing fidelity of model transfer: An example from psychiatric rehabilitation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 1995 Apr;18(2):143–53. Vinson CA. Using Concept Mapping to Develop a Conceptual Framework for Creating Virtual Communities of Practice to Translate Cancer Research into Practice. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014 Apr 24;11:130280. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, et al. Expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study. Implementation Sci. 2014 Dec;9(1):39. Rainey L, van der Waal D, Donnelly LS, Evans DG, Wengstrom Y, Broeders M. Women’s decision-making regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening and prevention from the perspective of international healthcare professionals. PloS one. 2018;13(6):e0197772. Nielsen B, Slinning K, Weie Oddli H, Drozd F. Identification of Implementation Strategies Used for the Circle of Security-Virginia Family Model Intervention: Concept Mapping Study. JMIR research protocols. 2018;7(6):e10312. Kuunders TJM, van Bon-Martens MJH, van de Goor IAM, Paulussen TGWM, van Oers HAM. Towards local implementation of Dutch health policy guidelines: a concept-mapping approach. Health promotion international. 2018;33(4):635–47. Hojberg H, Rasmussen CDN, Osborne RH, Jorgensen MB. Identifying a practice-based implementation framework for sustainable interventions for improving the evolving working environment: Hitting the Moving Target Framework. Applied ergonomics. 2018;67(cyz, 0261412):170–7. van Engen-Verheul MM, Peek N, Haafkens JA, Joukes E, Vromen T, Jaspers MWM, et al. What is needed to implement a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits to improve care quality: A concept mapping study among cardiac rehabilitation teams. International journal of medical informatics. 2017;97(ct4, 9711057):76–85. Ruud MP, Raanaas RK, Bjelland M. Caregivers’ perception of factors associated with a healthy diet among people with intellectual disability living in community residences: A Concept mapping method. Research in developmental disabilities. 2016;59(8709782, rid):202–10. Joukes E, Cornet R, de Bruijne MC, de Keizer NF. Eliciting end-user expectations to guide the implementation process of a new electronic health record: A case study using concept mapping. International journal of medical informatics. 2016;87(ct4, 9711057):111–7. Bradbury-Jones C, Breckenridge JP, Devaney J, Duncan F, Kroll T, Lazenbatt A, et al. Priorities and strategies for improving disabled women’s access to maternity services when they are affected by domestic abuse: a multi-method study using concept maps. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2015;15(100967799):350. Sranacharoenpong K, Hanning RM. Developing a diabetes prevention education programme for community health-care workers in Thailand: formative findings. Primary health care research & development. 2011;12(4):357–69. Alkahtani KDF. Using concept mapping to improve parent implementation of positive behavioral interventions for children with challenging behaviors. International Education Studies. 2013;6(11):47–57. Daoud N, Jung YE, Sheikh Muhammad A, Weinstein R, Qaadny A, Ghattas F, et al. Facilitators and barriers to smoking cessation among minority men using the behavioral-ecological model and Behavior Change Wheel: A concept mapping study. PloS one. 2018;13(10):e0204657. Wutzke S, Roberts N, Willis C, Best A, Wilson A, Trochim W. Setting strategy for system change: using concept mapping to prioritise national action for chronic disease prevention. Health research policy and systems. 2017;15(1):69. Ogden K, Barr J, Greenfield D. Determining requirements for patient-centred care: a participatory concept mapping study. BMC health services research. 2017;17(1):780. Dawson AP, Cargo M, Stewart H, Chong A, Daniel M. Identifying multi-level culturally appropriate smoking cessation strategies for Aboriginal health staff: a concept mapping approach. Health education research. 2013;28(1):31–45. Appleby NJ, Dunt D, Southern DM, Young D. General practice integration in Australia. Primary health services provider and consumer perceptions of barriers and solutions. Australian family physician. 1999;28(8):858–63. Blackstone S, Iwelunmor J, Plange-Rhule J, Gyamfi J, Quakyi NK, Ntim M, et al. Sustaining Nurse-Led Task-Shifting Strategies for Hypertension Control: A Concept Mapping Study to Inform Evidence-Based Practice. Worldviews on evidence-based nursing. 2017;14(5):350–7. Aarons GA, Sommerfeld DH, Chi BH, Ezeanolue EE, Sturke R, Guay L, et al. Concept Mapping of PMTCT Implementation Challenges and Solutions Across 6 sub-Saharan African Countries in the NIH-PEPFAR PMTCT Implementation Science Alliance. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999). 2016;72 Suppl 2(100892005):S202-6. Iwelunmor J, Blackstone S, Gyamfi J, Airhihenbuwa C, Plange-Rhule J, Tayo B, et al. A Concept Mapping Study of Physicians’ Perceptions of Factors Influencing Management and Control of Hypertension in Sub-Saharan Africa. International journal of hypertension. 2015;2015(101538881):412804. Salvador JG, Altschul D, Rosas SR, Goldman AW, Feldstein Ewing SW. Use of concept mapping to support evidence-based practice implementation improvement in rural areas. Journal of Rural Mental Health. 2018;42(1):3–19. Reis RS, Kelly CM, Parra DC, Barros M, Gomes G, Malta D, et al. Developing a research agenda for promoting physical activity in Brazil through environmental and policy change. Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health. 2012;32(2):93–100. Kane M, Trochim W. Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation [Internet]. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2007 [cited 2025 Dec 16]. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/concept-mapping-for-planning-and-evaluation Trochim WMK. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 1989 Jan;12(1):1–16. Trochim W, Kane M. Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2005 June 1;17(3):187–91. Burke JG, O’Campo P, Peak GL, Gielen AC, McDonnell KA, Trochim WMK. An Introduction to Concept Mapping as a Participatory Public Health Research Method. Qual Health Res. 2005 Dec;15(10):1392–410. Rosas SR, Kane M. Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2012 May;35(2):236–45. Tables Table 1. Pubmed Search Strategy 1. (“group concept map*” or “concept map*” or GCM).ti,ab,kf. 2. (“structured conceptualization” or “concept systems” or “Concept Systems Global MAX™” OR “Group Wisdom”). ti,ab,kf. 3. 1 OR 2 4. exp implementation science/ 5. (implementation adj2 (research* or stud* or determinant* or strateg* or approach* or science* or evaluation* or process* or outcome*)).ti,ab,kf. 6. (dissemination adj2 (research* science* or implementa*)).ti,ab,kf. 7. ("d&I” or “knowledge transfer” or “knowledge translation”).ti,ab,kf. 8. (acceptab* or adopt* or appropriate* or feasib* or fidelity or cost or reach or penetration or sustainability or sustainment or diffusion or hybrid type,).ti,ab,kf. 9. 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8 10. 3 AND 9 Note: exp = explode; .ti,ab,kf. = searches in title, abstract, and author keywords Table 2. Details of the data extraction Category Subcategory Information extracted Study Characteristics • full name of the first author • publication year • article title • journal name or reference source • research-related information (e.g., study aims, study design, setting, sample size, grouping structure, and the evidence-based practice/innovation things under study) Implementation Focus (PEDALs framework) P (Problem) • Study focusses on identifying the real-world problem in health or healthcare that needs addressing E (Evidence-based practice) • Study focusses on the evidence-based or evidence-informed practice, intervention, or policy to be implemented, including its adaptation for local contexts and, when appropriate, the de-implementation of ineffective practices D (Determinants) • Study focusses on identifying and prioritizing the determinants (ie., barriers and facilitators) influencing EBP implementation A (Action) • Study focusses on the development new or selecting and tailoring existing implementation strategies to address the identified determinants L (Long-term use) • Study focusses on the efforts to ensure the the continued use and effectiveness of the implemented EBP over time, including the assessment of implementation outcomes which are usually related to EBP sustainment, and arrange and plan for sustaining EBP beyond initial s (Scale and scale-up) • Study focusses on the processes of scale-up, iterative improvement across multiple implementation cycles, and rigorous evaluation of implementation effectiveness using appropriate study designs. GCM methodological characteristics Conceptual and theoretical foundations • Sources of GCM methodology, and guiding theoretical frameworks or models) GCM procedures and technical features • Participant characteristics, rationale for population selection, recruitment processes, and participant incentives or benefits, prompt development and formulation, number of prompts and rounds, idea generation procedures, numbers of statements and clusters, rating and scoring dimensions and scales, levels of participant agreement, mapping software, types and numbers of maps, and data visualization methods Resources and feasibility considerations • Mapping duration, costs, and required resources Reflexive assessments of method use • Reported strengths, limitations, barriers, and facilitators related to the GCM process. Additional information Study outcomes and remarks • Main study outcomes, key findings, and relevant author remarks Table 3. Thematic domains and subthemes identified in the included studies Topics Total PEDALs Cite Primary Thematic Subthemes Health Systems, Policy, and Organizational Change 33(26.4%) Implementation evaluation 9 E, D, L [46,59,67,86,88,92,94,100,115] Health systems 7 E, D, A [37,40,48,70,79,101,118] Policy implementation 4 D [68,98,114,131] Translational research 4 D [56,62,89,110] Primary care 3 D, A [12,22,126] Health services 3 D, A [73,80,124] Implementation training and collaboration 3 E, D [84,87,106] Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health 20(16.0%) Adolescent health 8 E,D [16,27,47,50,52,61,95,105] Maternal health 6 E,D,A [2,13,23,54,90,128] Child health 5 D,A,L [9,25,36,113,121] Reproductive health 1 D [17] Infectious Diseases and Cancer 19(15.2%) Cancer screening 6 D [30,32,44,99,102,112] Cancer treatment 5 E,D [14,33,49,77,107] HIV 4 E,D,A [39,65,82,93] HPV 4 E,D,A [8,15,24,64] Mental Health 16(12.8%) Mental health services 9 E,D,A [29,42,58,66,96,104,108,109,111] Substance use 7 E, [11,20,28,38,43,122,125] Chronic Disease Management 16(12.8%) Cardiovascular disease/hypertension 6 D,L [19,31,74,116,127,129] Rehabilitation 4 D [53,69,72,103] Diabetes 2 D [78,120] Pain 2 D,A [35,75] Chronic disease prevention 1 E [123] Stroke 1 D [41] Vulnerable Populations and Health Equity 13(10.4%) Low-income populations 4 D,A [51,57,71,85] Rural and remote populations 4 E,D,A [34,45,97,130] Socially marginalized populations 3 D [55,60,91] People with disabilities 2 D,A [117,119] Injury Prevention and Sports Health 8(6.4%) Sports injuries 3 D [10,18,26] Sports organization strategies 2 D [21,76] Sports injury prevention 2 D [81,83] Violence prevention 1 D [63] Table 4 Summary of Prompt Formulation Prompt Formulation Total Cite factor-identification oriented 41(32.8%) [14,17,19,20,22–26,30,32,33,36,41,46,48,50,56,60,64,72,81,82,90,91,96,97,99–104,108,112,115,117,124,127,129,130] goal-action oriented 29(23.2%) [4,8,18,27,29,35,37,39,52,54,57,59,62,63,68,70,74,77,78,85–87,93,107,116,116,122,123,125] problem-solution oriented 6(4.8%) [10,13,45,55,58,84] experience-reflection oriented 6(4.8%) [44,53,67,69,76,83] priority-ranking oriented 4(3.2%) [43,94,110,131] dual-dimension oriented 4(3.2%) [28,51,65,128] conditional-hypothetical oriented 3(2.4%) [11,89,118] Note: The table presents a single example of prompt formulation provided by each study. Table 5 The number of the maps The Order Of Map Total Cite 2, 5, 6 24(19.2) [8,20,25,33,59,60,62,66,70,72,73,77,78,82,83,85,87,88,91,95,107,123,125,130] 2, 6 17(13.6) [10,12,18,37,41,43,48,61,81,84,86,92,97,101,116,127,129] 2 14(11.2) [9,11,13,26,28,34,40,50,63,76,94,99,115,128] 4 7(5.6) [102–104,108,109,112,117] 6 6(4.8) [4,19,22,24,39,68] 5 4(3.2) [21,49,100,122] 1, 2, 5 3(2.4) [29,35,64] 1, 2, 6 3(2.4) [71,74,118] 4, 6 3(2.4) [16,17,36] 2, 5 2(1.6) [93,110] 3, 6 2(1.6) [45,69] 1, 2, 5, 6 1(0.8) [65] 1, 3 1(0.8) [46] 1, 5, 6 1(0.8) [23] 2, 3 1(0.8) [14] 2, 3, 6 1(0.8) [27] 2, 4 1(0.8) [32] 3, 5 1(0.8) [44] 4, 5, 6 1(0.8) [90] Note: 1 for Point map, 2 for Cluster map, 3 for Point rating map, 4 for Cluster rating map, 5 for Pattern match graphs, and 6 for Go-zone plot. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8572195","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":572688197,"identity":"daf0048e-4542-4414-b648-c8eafa6fd501","order_by":0,"name":"Huanyu Hu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southern Medical Univerity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Huanyu","middleName":"","lastName":"Hu","suffix":""},{"id":572688198,"identity":"24979934-cc41-47c6-9ee9-54c2ec5b1c65","order_by":1,"name":"Le Xu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Beijing Eighty School","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Le","middleName":"","lastName":"Xu","suffix":""},{"id":572688200,"identity":"eb600699-5216-4d4d-84b5-4c82e7fcef01","order_by":2,"name":"NIYIBIZI Julius","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southern Medical Univerity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"NIYIBIZI","middleName":"","lastName":"Julius","suffix":""},{"id":572688199,"identity":"bcbe67f4-d8e4-4c9c-959d-e6217ded961c","order_by":3,"name":"Bohan Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southern Medical Univerity","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bohan","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":572687735,"identity":"38f15858-5c08-4b0f-9eac-cdb8184debc7","order_by":4,"name":"Run (Sherry) Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southern Medical Univerity","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Run","middleName":"(Sherry)","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-11 07:57:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8572195/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8572195/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100133988,"identity":"758e2199-25fa-4105-8102-28ae0ac4f0b1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:30:55","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":2191630,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"GCMISscopingreviewV4hhy20260108.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8572195/v1/e4093fd9257d41c4d620fc0b.docx"},{"id":100366374,"identity":"0002eac2-bed7-4c78-bad8-ce0c2e3180dd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:56:17","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8572195.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8572195/v1/f0362b3b4d50a4060143f6d6.json"},{"id":100133990,"identity":"678bbe17-8320-4760-a9c1-59da5c3c4313","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:30:55","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":361027,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs85721950enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8572195/v1/8455f401a698c9e48ff15c78.xml"},{"id":100133989,"identity":"31ffabfb-67fd-4424-a8be-8d0e237b4e00","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:30:55","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":357301,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs85721950structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8572195/v1/04668d98b2de89d907573bb3.xml"},{"id":100133992,"identity":"1e31fa07-6ab3-42e3-bf93-73aee6942e3c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:30:55","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":388355,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8572195/v1/6ba71f7fa7ad53334e7b3b4c.html"},{"id":100367683,"identity":"d3a1052d-1649-4d47-b458-bab363b6a844","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:13","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":164051,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFlowchart describing the literature search\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8572195/v1/f45f755897681e61917a9955.jpg"},{"id":100133986,"identity":"81b38a01-d12d-4f54-8632-4ad6773520a4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 10:30:55","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":185698,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeographic and Temporal Distribution of Research Publications\u003c/strong\u003e. Figure 2A. Annual number of publications (1995–2024). Figure 2B. Proportion of publications by country. Figure 2C. Annual publications for selected countries (1990–2024). Note: Studies with multiple study locations were counted separately for each country.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8572195/v1/225145d096f3427d511b2a22.png"},{"id":100382284,"identity":"69fa79ea-ceb4-4ad9-95cf-c4664666d572","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 10:41:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1975038,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8572195/v1/9963f919-5d8c-4708-9dba-9608192220ce.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThe application of group concept mapping in implementation science: a scoping review\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eGroup Concept Mapping (GCM) is a participatory mixed-methods approach that enables diverse stakeholders to collaboratively generate, structure, and represent ideas about complex topics through visual cluster maps(1). Originally developed by Trochim in the 1980s, GCM integrates qualitative brainstorming with quantitative multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to produce a conceptual framework that reflects the group's collective understanding(1). This method uniquely fosters stakeholder engagement by ensuring active participation throughout all phases of the research process—from idea generation to interpretation—thereby enhancing shared understanding, facilitating communication, and promoting authentic consensus-building among participants with diverse perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn implementation science, GCM holds particular promise for addressing two core challenges: engaging heterogeneous stakeholders and structuring/prioritizing complex, stakeholder-generated knowledge to inform implementation planning and decision-making. In practice, GCM applications encompass a range of implementation-relevant functions, including prioritizing implementation determinants (barriers and facilitators), co-designing intervention components, and building consensus on implementation pathways in diverse health settings. For instance, Thepha et al. used GCM to engage community members and health professionals in developing a feasible 3-year breastfeeding implementation strategy in Thailand(2). However, despite its growing use, it remains unclear how GCM has actually been deployed across the implementation cycle, which implementation tasks it most commonly supports, and whether current reporting practices adequately document how GCM outputs are translated into implementation action. Without such clarity, the contribution of GCM to implementation science risks being understood primarily in methodological terms rather than in terms of its utility for implementation decision-making and practice. This review addresses these uncertainties by mapping GCM's deployment, tasks, and translational pathways, informing more equitable and rigorous stakeholder-engaged research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOBJECTIVES\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe objective of this scoping review is to examine how GCM has been used within implementation science, with specific aims to: (1) map the implementation stages at which GCM has been applied across the implementation cycle; (2) characterize the implementation tasks and functions that GCM has been used to support (e.g., determinant identification, prioritization, or strategy development); and (3) assess the completeness of reporting and the extent to which GCM outputs are documented as informing implementation decisions or actions. By synthesizing this evidence, the review aims to inform more rigorous, transparent, and implementation-relevant use of GCM in stakeholder-engaged implementation research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure the rigour and clarity of the review process, we followed the scoping review framework outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) manual for evidence synthesis(3), which is underpinned by the framework of Arskey and O\u0026rsquo;Malley and enhanced by Levac and colleagues. The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ECFSG). In reporting this review, we adhere to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist(4).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review did not place restrictions on specific participant groups; instead, eligibility was determined by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to the studies themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConcepts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study will define \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science\u003c/em\u003e as research on the development, selection, and evaluation of implementation strategies to promote the uptake, implementation, long-term sustainment, and scale-up of Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs), interventions, and policies; studies that identify and examine barriers and facilitators influencing implementation; and evaluations of implementation processes, mechanisms, and outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe acknowledge that, in the existing literature, some studies do not clearly distinguish between EBPs or innovations and implementation strategies. In particular, studies may describe the co-creation of \u0026ldquo;strategies\u0026rdquo; when the activities primarily involve the design or adaptation of the intervention or innovation itself. For the purposes of this review, such studies will be carefully examined and, where appropriate, reclassified as focusing on intervention or EBP development rather than on implementation strategy development, in accordance with established conceptual distinctions in implementation science.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContext\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll settings relevant to implementation science research will be included.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTypes of Evidence Sources\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArticles included in the title, abstract, and full-text reviews met the following criteria: (a) study focus: research apply group concept mapping methodology within an implementation science context; (b) publication type: original empirical studies with adequate methodological detail, including primary research articles, case studies, conference proceedings, and theses/dissertations; (c) publication date: no restrictions; (d) language: English or Chinese; and (e) availability: publicly accessible full-text sources. Exclusion criteria were: (a) publication types: reviews, commentaries, editorials, letters, opinion pieces, and textbooks; and (b) duplicates: secondary reports of the same study, with only the most complete report retained.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSearch Strategy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSearches were conducted on December 29, 2024, across the following electronic databases from inception: PubMed, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), PsycINFO, Scopus, and EMBASE. We will also search the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Clinical trials, ProQuest, and GroupWisdom,\u0026nbsp;a web-based platform commonly used to support group concept mapping studies, to locate grey literature. The search strategy will involve a combination of keywords and subject headings related to \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eGroup Concept Mapping\u003c/em\u003e\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eImplementation Science\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026quot; As per the JBI methodology, an initial search of Pubmed was performed to find potentially relevant keywords and terms for building the final search strategy. The search was then be tailored to each database. The search strategy for PubMed is included in Supplement Table 1. We also examined the reference lists of all included research studies for additional resources. Key authors were contacted with requests to provide relevant full text papers if these are not available through the library/inter-library loan.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource of Evidence Selection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing database searches, all records were imported into Covidence(5) for automatic duplicate removal. Both the title/abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers (HH and LX), with a third reviewer (SRW) available to adjudicate any ambiguous cases. Each stage included documentation of the reasons for exclusion, ensuring transparency in the selection process. After screening was completed, the included articles were exported to Zotero (Version 7)(6) and Microsoft Excel for data extraction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Extraction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA standardized data extraction form was developed and pilot-tested on a small sample of studies to ensure clarity, comprehensiveness, and consistency. Two reviewers (HH and LX) independently extracted data from all included studies and cross-verified each other\u0026rsquo;s entries, resolving discrepancies through discussion and consensus. Missing or unclear information was coded as \u0026quot;Not Reported\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;Unclear\u0026quot; to ensure transparent documentation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were extracted across four predefined domains: ①basic study characteristics; ②implementation-stage alignment, examined using the PEDALs framework as an analytic organizing structure(7); ③methodological characteristics of GCM use; and ④additional study outcomes and author-reported remarks. The PEDALs framework, which conceptualizes the implementation lifecycle into six stages\u0026mdash;Problem identification, Evidence-based practice, Determinants, Action, Long-term use, and Scale and Scale-up, was used in this review to assess where and for which implementation tasks GCM has been applied. Definitions of each stage are provided in Table 2. Details of the data extraction framework and analytic dimensions are also summarized in Table 2.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Selection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 1 shows the flow chart of the studies\u0026apos; identification and selection, listing explicit reasons for exclusion. A systematic search of ten electronic databases yielded 1,564 references. After removing 302 duplicates, 1,262 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in the exclusion of 1,001 irrelevant records. The remaining 261 articles underwent full-text review, of which 126 were excluded due to wrong setting, wrong study design, inability to retrieve, or language restrictions. During data extraction, 12 additional studies were excluded (duplicates, textbooks, studies not including GCM, or reviews/commentaries), and four additional non-overlapping primary studies were identified from the reference lists of included review articles, resulting in a total of 125 studies included in this scoping review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTemporal Trends and Growth of Publications\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTemporally, publications spanned three decades (1995\u0026ndash;2024). Following sporadic early activity, annual output increased from 2015 onward, exceeding five studies per year consistently from 2016. The period 2019\u0026ndash;2024 marked a phase of rapid growth, with 78 studies (62.4%)(2,8\u0026ndash;84) published during these six years. Publication peaked in 2024 (n=22, 17.6%)(8\u0026ndash;29). (Figure 2A)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeographic Distribution of Included Studies\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeographically, studies were conducted across six continents, with pronounced concentration in North America (n=71, 48.3%)(8,9,11,13\u0026ndash;17,20,24,29,31,32,34\u0026ndash;36,38\u0026ndash;40,43,45,47,50\u0026ndash;53,56,59\u0026ndash;64,66,67,70,73,75,76,78\u0026ndash;80,82,84\u0026ndash;111) and Europe (n=46, 31.3%)(18,23,25,27,30,33,37,42,44,46,49,58,68,69,77,83,112\u0026ndash;119). Within North America, the United States contributed 54 studies (36.7%)(8,9,11,13\u0026ndash;17,20,31,32,34,35,38\u0026ndash;40,43,47,51,56,59,61\u0026ndash;64,66,67,73,75,76,78\u0026ndash;80,84\u0026ndash;89,91\u0026ndash;97,100,104,106\u0026ndash;111) and Canada 16 (10.9%)(24,29,36,45,50,52,53,60,70,82,98,99,101\u0026ndash;103,105). European activity spanned 18 countries, led by the Netherlands (n=10, 6.8%)(25,33,37,42,44,49,112,114,116,118), followed by Sweden (n=5, 3.4%)(46,58,77,83,112) and the United Kingdom(30,42,112,119), Denmark(18,42,69,115), Norway(23,42,113,117), and Italy(33,42,49,55) (each n=4, 2.7%). Other regions contributed fewer studies: Asia(2,12,28,41,48,54,120\u0026ndash;122) and Oceania(10,21,26,72,81,123\u0026ndash;126) each accounted for nine studies (6.1%), with Australia representing all Oceania entries; Africa(19,57,65,71,74,127\u0026ndash;129) comprised eight studies (5.4%), including 3 multi-country Sub-Saharan initiatives(65,128,129); and Latin America contributed 4 studies (2.7%) from Mexico(90,130), Brazil(131), and the Caribbean region(22). Geographic diversification intensified markedly after 2019. Temporal trends in the United States paralleled the overall pattern, likely because its substantial contribution (n=54, 36.7%) dominated the sample, accelerating from 2015 and peaking at 9 studies in 2024 (Figure 2B and Figure 2C).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-Insert Figure 2 here-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePublication Journals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of publication journals, the included studies were predominantly published in core implementation science journals, particularly \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science\u003c/em\u003e (7, 5.6%)(86,88,92,94,99,104,111) and \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science Communications\u003c/em\u003e (6, 4.8%)(8,47,59,65,73,74). Other notable publication venues included \u003cem\u003eBMC Health Services Research\u003c/em\u003e (5, 4.0%)(23,42,70,82,124), \u003cem\u003eHealth Research Policy and Systems\u003c/em\u003e (4, 3.2%)(27,68,80,123), \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Medical Informatics\u003c/em\u003e (4, 3.2%)(37,71,116,118), and \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e (4, 3.2%)(20,22,112,122) (Supplementary Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy Design Characteristics and Use of GCM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding study design, 107 studies (85.6%)(2,8\u0026ndash;12,14\u0026ndash;37,39,41,44\u0026ndash;50,52\u0026ndash;57,59\u0026ndash;78,80\u0026ndash;89,92,93,95,97\u0026ndash;104,108\u0026ndash;110,112,114,116\u0026ndash;118,120,121,123\u0026ndash;131) applied GCM as the sole methodological approach, whereas 18 studies (14.4%)(13,38,40,42,43,58,79,91,94,96,105\u0026ndash;107,111,113,115,119,122) adopted an embedded design where GCM constituted only one component of a multi-method process. For example, one study(38), aiming to promote equitable implementation for individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, adopted a three-phase structure. The first phase involved qualitative interviews to identify barriers and facilitators of equitable implementation; the second phase applied GCM to generate and prioritize actionable implementation strategies; and the third phase iteratively developed an implementation toolkit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eImplementation Domains\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;and Contexts of GCM Use\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the stated research Topics, we identified seven primary thematic domains across the included studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(1) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eImplementation Science Methods, Conceptualization, and Capacity Building\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e (33 studies, 26.4%). This domain comprised studies in which GCM was used primarily for methodological, conceptual, or evaluative purposes in implementation science, rather than to address a specific clinical or service delivery problem. Subthemes included implementation evaluation(46,59,67,86,88,92,94,100,115), health systems(37,40,48,70,79,101,118), policy implementation(68,98,114,131), translational research(56,62,89,110), primary care(12,22,126), health services(73,80,124), implementation training and collaboration(84,87,106).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMaternal, Child, and Adolescent Health\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e accounted for 20 studies (16.0%), spanning substance adolescent health(16,27,47,50,52,61,95,105), maternal health(2,13,23,54,90,128), child health(9,25,36,113,121) and reproductive health(17).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(3) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfectious Diseases and Cancer\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, also with 19 studies (15.2%), included cancer screening(30,32,44,99,102,112), cancer treatment(14,33,49,77,107), HIV(39,65,82,93) and HPV(8,15,24,64).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(4) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMental Health\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e consisted of 16 studies (12.8%), addressing mental health services(29,42,58,66,96,104,108,109,111) and substance use(11,20,28,38,43,122,125).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(5) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChronic Disease Management\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e represented 16 studies (12.8%), primarily focused on cardiovascular disease/hypertension(19,31,74,116,127,129), rehabilitation(53,69,72,103), diabetes(78,120), pain(35,75), chronic disease prevention(123)and stroke(41).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(6) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eVulnerable Populations and Health Equity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e included 13 studies (10.4%), covering low-income populations(51,57,71,85), rural and remote populations(34,45,97,130), socially marginalized populations(55,60,91) and people with disabilities(117,119).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(7) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInjury Prevention and Sports Health\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e also comprised 10 studies (8.0%), including sports injuries(10,18,26), sports organization strategies(21,76), sports injury prevention(81,83) and violence prevention(63). (Table 3)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImplementation Science Components\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Addressed by GCM Applications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 125 included studies varied in terms of the implementation science stages or components on which GCM was applied. To systematically characterize this variation, we mapped each study to stages of the implementation process using the PEDALs model as an analytical organizing structure. Most studies applied GCM to the determinants to implementation stage (94, 75.2%)(9\u0026ndash;11,14,16\u0026ndash;22,26\u0026ndash;34,36,40\u0026ndash;44,47\u0026ndash;51,53\u0026ndash;56,58,60\u0026ndash;65,67\u0026ndash;69,71,72,74\u0026ndash;79,81,83\u0026ndash;85,87\u0026ndash;94,97\u0026ndash;106,108\u0026ndash;112,114,116\u0026ndash;122,124,126,128\u0026ndash;131), and 5 studies (4.0%)(34,87,94,97,119) addressed two stages of the model simultaneously.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eP - Problem: Challenges in Health or Healthcare\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Problem stage of the PEDALs Model focuses on the identification of the real-world problem in health or healthcare that needs addressing. This stage concerns defining what problem requires action before decisions are made regarding EBP or implementation strategies. As shown in Table 5, none of the 125 included studies used GCM exclusively to identify or define a health problem. This finding suggests a limited application of GCM at the problem-identification stage.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eE \u0026ndash; Evidence-Based/Informed Practice: the \u0026ldquo;Thing\u0026rdquo; to be implemented\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Evidence-Based/Informed Practice stage represents the \u0026ldquo;thing\u0026rdquo; to be implemented, most commonly an EBP, intervention, program, or policy. Across the included literature, this stage encompassed several distinct activities: (1) development or refinement of innovative intervention; (2) adaptation of interventions to local contextual needs and constraints; (3) de-implementation of ineffective, low-value, or harmful practices; and (4) appraisal and prioritisation of existing intervention components. As shown in Table 5, only 14 studies (11.2%) primarily focused on this stage. Among them, seven studies addressed the development or refinement of innovative interventions. For instance, one study focuses on co-developing culturally sensitive interventions to address food insecurity during the first 1,000 days of life(13); and another one aimed to identify the most effective and feasible interventions to achieve more structured and standardised Electronic Health Records data documentation(37). Three studies focused on the adaptation of interventions to local contextual needs and constraints, with research aims including improving HPV vaccination delivery in safety-net clinics(37), distributing HPV self-sampling kits in non-traditional community settings such as hair salons(15), and localising existing breastfeeding promotion strategies to better fit specific contexts(2). One study addressed the appraisal and prioritisation of existing intervention components (37). Another study employed GCM to systematically organize and prioritize research priorities, to further inform the development of a comprehensive dissemination and implementation research agenda(107). Additionally, three studies addressed other related aspects: two of these focused on both the development or refinement of innovative interventions and the appraisal and prioritization of existing intervention components(59)(86), while one centered on both the development or refinement of innovative interventions and the adaptation of interventions to local contextual needs and constraints(96).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eD - Determinants to Implementation: Barriers and Facilitators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Determinants stage captures the barriers and facilitators that influence successful implementation and must be systematically examined once an EBP has been selected or optimised. As shown in Table 5, 90 of the 125 studies (72.0%) focused exclusively on the determinants to implementation stage. Importantly, determinants were also frequently examined in conjunction with other components of the implementation process; when such multi-component applications were considered, nearly four-fifths of all studies (75.2%) addressed implementation determinants, indicating that identifying determinants is the primary application of GCM within implementation science.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo further characterise the types of determinants examined, studies were classified as focusing on barriers only, facilitators only, or both barriers and facilitators. A total of 80 studies(9,11,14,16,17,19\u0026ndash;22,26\u0026ndash;31,33,36,40\u0026ndash;44,47\u0026ndash;49,51,53\u0026ndash;56,58,60\u0026ndash;65,67\u0026ndash;69,71,72,74\u0026ndash;78,84,85,88\u0026ndash;94,98,100\u0026ndash;106,108\u0026ndash;112,116\u0026ndash;118,120,121,124,126,128\u0026ndash;131) focused on both barriers and facilitators. These studies addressed diverse implementation contexts, such as identifying facilitators and barriers to engagement in medication treatment for opioid use disorder in Washington State, USA(20); assessing barriers and facilitators to oral and dental health screening among tobacco users seeking cessation advice(28); examining anticipated responses of sexual- and/or gender- minoritized individuals to a hypothetical nicotine reduction policy(11). Six studies focused exclusively on barriers to implementation, such as barriers to prostate cancer screening among African American men(32), barriers to accessing mental health services among immigrant youth in mid-sized Canadian cities(50), reasons for clinicians\u0026rsquo; rejection of guideline recommendations when interacting with clinical decision support systems(79). Four studies focused exclusively on facilitators, such as facilitators for integrating injury prevention training into routine youth handball practice across multiple stakeholder levels(83), and facilitators of smoking cessation perceived by men from ethnic minority backgrounds(122).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, two studies combined the phase of determinants identification with the EBP determination (97) (87). For example, one study primarily focused on identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation, with secondary attention to the development or refinement of innovative implementation interventions, aiming to examine determinants of access to healthy and affordable food in rural U.S. communities while informing a feasible rural food policy research agenda(97).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA - Action to Address the Determinants: Implementation Strategies\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Action stage involves developing new or selecting and tailoring existing implementation strategies to address determinants identified. Of the 14 studies (11.2%) focusing on this stage, excluding three protocols(38,80,113), the remaining 11 studies primarily employed GCM to generate and prioritize implementation strategies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross studies, GCM supported implementation strategy development through three recurring functional patterns. First, GCM was used to generate and prioritize large sets of potential implementation strategies through structured brainstorming, clustering, and rating exercises. Stakeholders\u0026mdash;including service users, clinicians, managers, community representatives, and policymakers\u0026mdash;collectively produced strategy domains (clusters) and prioritized strategies based on perceived importance and feasibility. This approach enabled transparent, data-informed selection of strategies in contexts such as person-centered care transformation [12], teen suicide screening in emergency departments [66], implementation of the ABCDEF bundle\u0026mdash;a multicomponent, evidence-based ICU care framework encompassing pain assessment/prevention/management, spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, analgesia and sedation optimization, delirium assessment/prevention/management, early mobility, and family engagement[132], and rural health equity initiatives using digital technologies [45].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, GCM facilitated contextual adaptation and equity-oriented tailoring of implementation strategies. In several studies, stakeholders co-developed culturally and socially responsive strategies that addressed context-specific barriers such as stigma, trust, access, and structural inequities. Examples included improving cervical cancer screening among South Asian women [24], co-creating smoking cessation strategies for Aboriginal Australians [125], and operationalizing national medical assistance policies for indigent populations in Mali [57]. In these applications, GCM enabled strategies to be explicitly grounded in local values, lived experiences, and feasibility constraints.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, GCM was used to integrate and extend existing implementation strategy frameworks. Some studies employed GCM to adapt and expand established taxonomies such as the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), generating context-specific strategy clusters and prioritization profiles [23]. Others combined GCM with theoretical or design frameworks, such as the Theoretical Domains Framework [70] or user-centered design principles [73], to create strategy domains.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, two studies combined the Determinants identification with the implementation strategy co-creation, linking the identification of barriers and facilitators with the subsequent development of strategies to address them. For instance, one of study aimed to identify priority areas for improving access to reproductive health services for women with disabilities affected by intimate partner violence, to develop strategies to enhance access and utilization, and to assess the feasibility of implementing the proposed strategies(119).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eL - Long-term Use of EBP in Practice Routines\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Long-term use stage reflects two related but distinct meanings within the PEDALs Model. First, it concerns the sustained integration of EBPs into routine practice, emphasising sustainability and long-term sustainment beyond initial implementation. Second, it encompasses the assessment of implementation outcomes, such as acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, and penetration that indicate whether long-term uptake is attainable or achieved. As shown in Table 5, three studies (2.4%) focused on long-term use of EBPs in practice routines, but none of the studies explicitly assessed implementation outcomes. In the first study, the objective was to identify the conditions necessary to sustain the Healthy Primary School of the Future initiative by focusing on how to integrate health-promoting practices into the routine operations of schools(25). In the second study, the goal was to determine how to implement job crafting interventions in a way that ensures their effects are sustained and effectively integrated into daily work routines(46). In the third study, the focus was on understanding how to sustain and integrate a task-shifting strategy for hypertension into routine clinical practice in sub-Saharan Africa(127).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003es - Scale-up, Iteration, and Evaluation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe s stage of the PEDALs Model encompasses later-phase processes of scale-up, iteration, and evaluation by study design. This stage includes (1) scaling up EBPs to broader populations or settings, (2) iteratively refining interventions and strategies based on ongoing learning and contextual feedback, and (3) rigorously evaluating implementation processes and outcomes using appropriate methodological approaches. As shown in Table 5, no studies applied GCM exclusively to this stage.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGCM Methodological Characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMethodological References for the Use of GCM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the 125 included studies, 80.0% (n = 100)(2,8\u0026ndash;14,16\u0026ndash;29,32\u0026ndash;38,40\u0026ndash;47,50\u0026ndash;52,55,57,58,60\u0026ndash;74,76,78\u0026ndash;83,86\u0026ndash;90,92\u0026ndash;94,97,99\u0026ndash;102,104,105,108,109,111\u0026ndash;119,121\u0026ndash;124,127\u0026ndash;131) explicitly reported methodological references for the use of GCM. Five core sources dominated these methodological citations, ranked by frequency of citation: (1) the most frequently cited source was the methodological textbook\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation\u003c/em\u003e, edited by Kane and Trochim and published in 2007(132). Widely regarded as the foundational methodological manual for GCM, this volume was cited by most of GCM studies in implementation science (n = 55)(14,17,20,21,24,25,28,29,33\u0026ndash;35,44\u0026ndash;46,51,52,55,58,60,62,63,65,69,71,73,76,78,80\u0026ndash;82,86\u0026ndash;88,90,92,97,99\u0026ndash;102,104,108,112,115\u0026ndash;119,122,123,127\u0026ndash;131); (2) Trochim\u0026rsquo;s seminal 1989 paper, \u003cem\u003eAn Introduction to Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation\u003c/em\u003e(133), was commonly referenced to establish the historical and theoretical foundations of GCM and was frequently cited alongside the 2007 textbook (n = 25)(14,28,29,33,35,45,60,62,69,71,82,86,90,99,102,104,108,112,115\u0026ndash;117,123,128,130,131); (3) the 2005 article by Trochim and Kane, \u003cem\u003eConcept mapping: An Introduction to Structured Conceptualization in Health Care\u003c/em\u003e (134), represented a critical bridge for the application of GCM within health care and implementation science by explicitly positioning GCM as a structured conceptualization method suited to complex health systems, and was cited by 16 studies(16,18,19,22,23,35,62,68,69,71,72,79,83,86,93,123); (4) Burke and colleagues\u0026rsquo; 2005 publication, \u003cem\u003eAn Introduction to Concept Mapping as a Participatory Public Health Research Method\u003c/em\u003e(135), emphasized the participatory and public health, oriented nature of GCM and was frequently used in studies focusing on multi-stakeholder engagement, co-creation of implementation strategies, and policy-relevant research (n = 5)(9,42,43,111,117); and (5) the methodological rigor of GCM was most commonly supported by the pooled analysis conducted by Rosas and Kane in 2012, \u003cem\u003eQuality and Rigor of the Concept Mapping Methodology\u003c/em\u003e(136), which addressed issues of reliability, validity, and methodological rigor and was often cited to respond to concerns regarding the scientific robustness of GCM (n = 4)(35,63,86,87).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTheory, model and framework use\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e14 studies (11.2%) reported the use of explicit frameworks. These included the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)(9,16,42,47,74,80,130), Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)(16), health equity implementation frameworks, Complexity Theory(38), the Explore, Prepare, Implement, Sustain (EPIS) framework(16), the Behavioral Ecology Model (BEM)(122), the Andersen Model(119), and the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) process(99). Frameworks served two primary functions: during the preparation phase, they were introduced as conceptual \u0026ldquo;thinking checklists\u0026rdquo; to ensure comprehensive consideration without mandating strict application; during the interpretation phase, frameworks were overlaid onto final concept map clusters to contextualize findings. Conversely, several studies deliberately avoided the use of guiding frameworks. One study explicitly stated that, \u0026ldquo;to allow providers to generate their own ideas rather than constrain them within our preconceptions, we deliberately avoided specifying any theoretical propositions or models at the study\u0026rsquo;s outset, aligning with a more exploratory, data-driven approach\u0026rdquo; (27).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReporting of GCM Procedural Components\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGCM\u0026nbsp;has been classically described as a multi-step participatory process. According to foundational methodological work by Trochim and colleagues(133), GCM is commonly operationalized through six core steps: (1) Preparation, including selecting the participants and developing the focus; (2) Generation of statements through brainstorming; (3) Structuring of statements by sorting and rating; (4) Representation of statements; including the statement list, cluster list, cluster naming, point map, cluster map, point rating map, and cluster rating map; (5) Interpretation of maps, and (6) Utilization of maps for planning and evaluation. Importantly, this six-step structure represents a canonical methodological framework rather than a rigid or mandatory protocol, and considerable variation in implementation and reporting has been noted across applied studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with this flexibility, studies included in this scoping review varied substantially in how GCM procedures were described. For example, some studies described GCM as (1) brainstorming, in which specific ideas from stakeholders are stimulated by a focus prompt; (2) rating each item brainstormed by the entire group; and (3) grouping the brainstormed items into conceptual clusters(43). In addition, some studies separated the structuring of statements into two distinct steps, sorting and rating, while others did not explicitly label a preparation step but described participant recruitment procedures and the formulation of the focus prompt.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the purpose of this review, we therefore assessed the extent to which each of the six canonical GCM steps was explicitly reported. Of the 125 included articles, 25 (20.0%)(2,8,20,22,29,30,32,34,36,39\u0026ndash;41,44,48,50,56,65,66,74,84,96,100,118,125,128)\u0026nbsp;explicitly reported all six steps; most studies described a subset of steps, commonly omitting either the preparation step (3, 2.4%)(9,13,15)\u0026nbsp;or the interpretation step (74, 59.2%)(10\u0026ndash;12,14,17\u0026ndash;19,21,23\u0026ndash;28,33,35,37,43,45\u0026ndash;47,49,51\u0026ndash;53,55,57,59\u0026ndash;64,68\u0026ndash;73,76\u0026ndash;78,81,83,85\u0026ndash;95,97,99,101\u0026ndash;104,107\u0026ndash;110,112,115\u0026ndash;117,122,124,127,129,131), resulting in five reported steps in 77 studies (61.6%), while six studies (4.8%)(31,38,42,80,114,119)\u0026nbsp;described the first four steps. Additionally, 15 studies (12.0%)(54,58,67,75,79,82,98,105,106,111,113,120,121,123,126)\u0026nbsp;did not explicitly report the GCM steps.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eI. Preparation Phase: Participant Selection and Focus Development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipant category\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGCM is designed to integrate diverse stakeholder perspectives to generate systematic and quantifiable conceptual frameworks and therefore typically includes a wide variety of relevant participants. Across the included studies, 66 (52.8%)(2,8\u0026ndash;11,13\u0026ndash;26,29,33\u0026ndash;39,41\u0026ndash;44,48,50,54,55,58,60,61,64\u0026ndash;66,68,70\u0026ndash;73,78,80,82,83,86,88,89,91,93,95,97,98,104,107,108,114,117,125,128,130) reported specific stakeholder categories, with the number ranging from 1 to 8,\u0026nbsp;and the 25th and 75th percentiles at 2 and 4, respectively. For example, in the Health Kiosks in Markets project, which explored the potential of marketplace health kiosks to improve cardiovascular disease prevention services, involved nurses, healthcare workers, clinical staff, laboratory technicians, health promotion and public health personnel (n = 22), representatives from marketing and commerce (n = 10), and non-governmental and patient representatives (n = 3) (19). In addition, seven studies (5.6%)(10,36,50,78,82,104,117,127) employed homogeneous stakeholder groups. For instance, a study aimed at identifying the challenges faced by sports program providers in supporting physically inactive women in injury prevention and management involved only program initiators as GCM participants(10).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSample size\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding sample size, studies included between 2 and 366 participants, with the 25th and 75th percentiles at 23 and 68, respectively. The most common sample size was 45, reported in six studies (4.8%)(24,49,65,67,87,119). However, because GCM is a multi-stage participatory method, the roles of participants, cognitive demands, and methodological requirements differ across phases (i.e., brainstorming, sorting, and rating), and individuals involved in the initial phase do not necessarily continue throughout subsequent stages. For example, in one study, 136 participants contributed to the brainstorming phase, yet only 38 (27.9%) took part in sorting and 83 (61.0%) engaged in rating(130). Accordingly, variation in participant numbers across phases is methodologically acceptable in GCM studies, and participation in early phases does not imply continued involvement in later stages. Based on our observations, most studies reported only the number of participants in the first phase as the overall sample size, likely because the initial brainstorming phase typically represents the broadest scope of stakeholder participation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipant Recruitment and Engagement\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConcerning participant recruitment and engagement, only 51 studies (40.8%)(2,8,10,11,14,16,24,25,27\u0026ndash;29,32,33,35,36,40,43\u0026ndash;46,50\u0026ndash;54,58\u0026ndash;63,69\u0026ndash;71,73,75,77,78,80,83,86\u0026ndash;88,92,111,112,115,116,122,123,127) explicitly disclosed their recruitment procedures. The majority employed non-probability sampling strategies, notably purposive or snowball sampling, and recruited diverse stakeholders via SMS, email, or advertisements, with participant numbers ranging from several dozen to several hundred. Studies commonly stratified participants into multiple subgroups based on professional roles to capture inputs across different organizational levels and expertise domains. Furthermore, to encourage participation, studies often provided incentives to participants, such as gift cards ranging from USD 10-50 depending on the GCM phase(8,10,11,20,29,50,59,64,80,130), or monetary compensation ranging from USD 25-50(16,40,51,63,86).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnly 21 studies (16.8%)(13,14,19,21,29,36,41,44,55,56,59,61,63,72,90,105,112,114,119,120,125) reported details on subgroup allocation during the idea generation phase. Several subgrouping strategies were identified. 1) The most common approach is to group participants based on stakeholder type. For example, the study examining gender and socio-ecological differences in stakeholder perceptions of athlete attrition within the Australian high-performance pathway system categorized participants into five socio-ecological levels: former first-tier athletes from a national institute (n = 3); stakeholders within athletes\u0026rsquo; immediate interpersonal environment, such as coaches and support staff (n = 6); external to the high-performance system but supporting athletes, including college and university representatives (n = 3); administrators and decision-makers from regional, state, and national sporting organizations (n = 15); and federal-level policymakers (n = 3) (21). 2) Other studies grouped participants by study location, such as by country into three groups(55,112) or by township into four group(63). 3) In some cases, subgrouping was based on participation preference. For instance, participants self-selected whether to engage via face-to-face or telephone interview formats, either in group sessions or individually(36).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFocus Development\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the preparation phase, it is essential to define the focus of the brainstorming session, which will guide idea generation in the subsequent stage. Among the included studies, 28 (22.4%)(9,12,15,21,31,34,38,40,42,47,49,73,75,79,80,88,92,95,98,105,106,109,111,113,119\u0026ndash;121,126) did not provide a prompt, whereas the remaining studies all included at least one prompt, with most studies (93, 74.4%) providing a single prompt, a few providing two prompts (3, 2.4%)(16,66,71), and one study (0.8%)(61) providing three prompts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs summarized in Table 4, studies that used prompt(s) employed a variety of prompt formats, which were categorized into seven types:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;(1)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efactor-identification oriented prompts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e, with the template \u0026quot;What are the factors influencing [behavior/implementation]?\u0026quot;, such as \u0026quot;What do you need to provide contraceptive services in your pharmacy?\u0026quot; (17) and \u0026quot;What makes medication for opioid use disorder like buprenorphine (also known as Suboxone or Subutex) difficult to start or keep using?\u0026quot; (20), were used in 41 studies (32.8%)(14,17,19,20,22\u0026ndash;26,30,32,33,36,41,46,48,50,56,60,64,72,81,82,90,91,96,97,99\u0026ndash;104,108,112,115,117,124,127,129,130);\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003egoal-action oriented prompts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, with the template \u0026quot;To [achieve objective/improve indicator], we could...\u0026quot;, for example \u0026ldquo;To increase HPV vaccination among adolescents (ages 9-13 years) in healthcare settings serving medically underserved communities, we can do the following...\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;(8)\u0026nbsp;and \u0026quot;To successfully deliver the ABCDEF bundle on a daily basis in the ICU, a specific thing that should be in place or included is...\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;(35), appeared in 29 studies (23.2%)(2,8,18,27,29,35,37,39,52,54,57,59,62,63,68,70,74,77,78,85\u0026ndash;87,93,107,114,116,122,123,125);\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;(3) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eproblem-solution oriented prompts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, with the template \u0026quot;Methods to address [problem] are...\u0026quot;, such as \u0026quot;What is a solution to tackle food insecurity among pregnant persons and families with children under 3 years old living in the West Las Vegas Promise Neighborhood?\u0026quot;(13) and \u0026quot;What are possible technology solutions that could address the health and well-being issues of people living with chronic illness in rural BC communities?\u0026quot;(45), were reported in six studies (4.8%)(10,13,45,55,58,84);\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(4) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eexperience-reflection oriented prompts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, with the template \u0026quot;From [experience/perspective], what do you think about...\u0026quot;, for example \u0026quot;From your perspective, factors within reablement programs that support or hold back older adults and families are...\u0026quot; (53) and \u0026quot;Based on your experiences of the RSP/SSP, what challenges are there to designing, developing, and delivering a successful program to engage inactive and somewhat active people in sport or physical activity?\u0026quot;(76), were provided in six studies (4.8%)(44,53,67,69,76,83);\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(5) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003epriority-ranking oriented prompts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, \u0026quot;What are the most important [outcomes/elements] in [domain]?\u0026quot;, such as \u0026quot;In advancing a program of research on sustainability, an important issue is...\u0026quot;(94) and \u0026quot;Please list at least ten specific opioid-related phenotypes that you would consider to be of high value from a patient care and research perspective\u0026quot;(43), were reported in four studies (3.2%)(43,94,110,131);\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(6) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003edual-dimension oriented prompt\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e, with the template \u0026quot;Facilitators for [behavior] are...; barriers are...\u0026quot;, for example \u0026quot;What motivates and helps me to visit the dentist for an oral health check is...\u0026quot; [facilitators] and \u0026quot;I do not visit the dentist for an oral health check because...\u0026quot; [barriers](28), as well as \u0026quot;What is it that encouraged or stopped people from shopping at the Fresh To You mobile markets? Think about yourself, family, neighbors, neighborhoods, and the markets themselves.\u0026quot;(51), appeared in four studies (3.2%)(28,51,65,128);\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eand (7) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003econditional-hypothetical oriented prompts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, with the template \u0026quot;If [condition changes], I would...\u0026quot;, such as \u0026quot;If all cigarettes sold in the United States only had half the nicotine in them that they do now, a specific action I would take or a specific reaction I would have is...\u0026quot;(11)\u0026nbsp;and \u0026quot;Professional practices in schools would be better informed by research if...\u0026quot;(89), were reported in three studies (2.4%)(11,89,118).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-Insert Table 4 here-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eII. Generation Phase: Idea Generation and Brainstorming Procedures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeneration phase involves the generation of ideas, which is most commonly conducted through brainstorming. Indeed, many studies explicitly referred to this phase as a \u0026ldquo;brainstorming\u0026rdquo; stage. Brainstorming was implemented using diverse formats, including one-to-one interviews, group discussions, and asynchronous online platforms where participants were invited to build upon previously submitted statements. In addition, some studies generated ideas by extracting statements from existing textual sources, such as annual reports, internal organizational memoranda, interview transcripts, or field notes(133).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the generation phase, participants are generally encouraged to produce a large number of statements. In group brainstorming settings, initial rounds may not fully capture all relevant ideas; therefore, additional rounds of idea generation are often conducted until no new statements emerge. However, only two studies explicitly reported the number of brainstorming rounds undertaken, documenting two rounds(16) and three rounds(43), respectively. Once data saturation was reached, research teams typically compiled all statements, removed duplicates, and merged overlapping or highly similar ideas. The consolidated list was then shared with participants to allow for further clarification or additions before proceeding to the subsequent GCM steps.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough a large volume of raw statements was often generated during brainstorming, the final number of consolidated statements was typically fewer than 100(133). For example, one study collected 632 statements from community forums and 868 statements from an online survey, yielding approximately 1,500 statements in total; after removing duplicates and overlapping content, these were condensed into 72 unique, representative statements(34). While 30 studies (24.0%)(24,30,31,38,40,42,46,47,54,57,58,67,73,79,80,89,96,98,100,103,105,106,111,113,119\u0026ndash;121,126,128,131) did not report the number of final statements. Some studies reported statement counts separately by subgroup; for instance, one study reported 94 statements generated by participants at the Choices program site and 96 statements generated by participants at Boston University(109). Among the remaining 94 studies (75.2%)(2,8\u0026ndash;23,25\u0026ndash;29,32\u0026ndash;37,39,41,43\u0026ndash;45,48\u0026ndash;53,55,56,59\u0026ndash;66,68\u0026ndash;72,74\u0026ndash;78,81\u0026ndash;88,90\u0026ndash;95,97,99,101,102,104,107,108,110,112,114\u0026ndash;118,122\u0026ndash;125,127,129,130)\u0026nbsp;that reported the total number of unique statements, 74 studies (59.2%)(2,8\u0026ndash;12,14\u0026ndash;21,23,26\u0026ndash;29,32\u0026ndash;35,37,41,43,45,48\u0026ndash;53,55,56,59\u0026ndash;63,66,68,70,71,74,76\u0026ndash;78,81\u0026ndash;86,88,90,92\u0026ndash;95,97,99,101,102,110,112,114\u0026ndash;116,122,123,125,127,129)\u0026nbsp;generated 100 or fewer statements. Overall, the number of statements ranged from 15 to 406.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIII. Structuring Phase: Sorting, Clustering, and Rating of Statements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStructuring phase involves structuring the statements to elucidate relationships among ideas and to rate them along one or more dimensions. This process typically includes sorting statements based on thematic similarity, resulting in the formation of clusters. Except for 26 studies (20.8%)(24,31,38,40,42,46,47,54,58,67,75,79,80,90,96,98,100,105,106,111,113,119\u0026ndash;121,126,131) that did not report cluster information, most studies identified between 4 and 18 clusters. Regarding rating activities, 18 studies (14.4%)(15,31,39,40,50,54,58,66,67,75,79,98,105,106,113,120,121,126) did not report any rating procedures. Among those that did, the majority (47 studies, 37.6%)(8,12,17\u0026ndash;19,21\u0026ndash;23,25,26,29,30,32,41,43,45,46,48,53,64,65,68,70,71,73,74,77,78,80\u0026ndash;84,91\u0026ndash;93,95,101,110,111,116,118,123,125,127,129,131) assessed statements on both importance and feasibility. In addition, 22 studies (17.5%)(9,13,20,28,34,36,47,51,52,57,60,69,89,90,102,103,109,112,114,115,117,130) rated statements solely on importance, while 8 studies (6.4%)(33,49,56,94,96,100,104,108) rated importance and changeability. Beyond these commonly used dimensions, a range of other criteria were applied, including effectiveness(37,85,122), clarity(11,86,88), urgency(27,55), relevance(44,122), ease of overcoming(61,76), achievement(124), perceived priority(119) and sustainability(59). Except for 23 studies (18.4%)(14,15,30,31,39,40,50,54,58,66,67,75,77,79,82,94,98,105,106,113,120,121,126) that did not report specific rating scales, most studies (73, 58.4%)(2,10,12,13,16,18\u0026ndash;26,28,29,32,33,35\u0026ndash;37,41\u0026ndash;43,46\u0026ndash;49,51,52,57,60\u0026ndash;64,69,71\u0026ndash;73,78,80,85,87,89\u0026ndash;93,95\u0026ndash;97,100\u0026ndash;104,108\u0026ndash;111,114\u0026ndash;119,123\u0026ndash;125,127,129,131) employed a 5-point Lik.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIV. Representation of GCM Outputs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRepresentation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the representation phase, 80 studies (64.0%) reported the software used for data analysis. The majority employed Concept System Global MAX\u0026trade; software (https://conceptsystemsglobal.com/index.php) or GroupWisdom (https://groupwisdom.com/groupconceptmapping) (66 studies, 82.5%)(8\u0026ndash;11,13,14,16,18,20,21,25,29,32\u0026ndash;35,37,38,40,44,46,47,49,51,53,55,56,60,62\u0026ndash;65,68\u0026ndash;70,72\u0026ndash;74,76\u0026ndash;78,81\u0026ndash;83,85\u0026ndash;88,91,92,97,99,103,104,108\u0026ndash;111,116,117,123\u0026ndash;125,128,130,131), while a smaller proportion used SPSS(14,28,41,71,45,47,72,80,102), R(12,59,61,21,66), or NVivo(95,98,105). Across the literature, detailed reporting on analytic duration, associated costs, and resource requirements was notably sparse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGCM results were typically presented using visual maps. These include maps that locate each statement as a point on a two-dimensional space (point maps), partition statements into clusters (cluster maps), and overlay averaged ratings either at the point level (point rating maps) or cluster level (cluster rating maps)(133). In addition, pattern match graphs and go-zone plots were commonly used. Together, these six visualizations are considered core GCM outputs. Among the 125 included studies, none presented all six visualizations; instead, studies reported only subsets of these figures (Table 6). The maximum number of figures presented in a single study was four (point map, cluster map, pattern match graph, and go-zone plot)(65). Overall, 25 studies (20.0%)(8,23,27,29,33,35,62,64,70\u0026ndash;72,74,77,78,82,83,85,88,90,91,95,107,118,123,125) presented three figures, 34 (26.9%)(10,12,14,16\u0026ndash;18,20,25,32,37,41,43\u0026ndash;46,48,59\u0026ndash;61,66,73,81,84,86,87,92,93,97,101,110,116,127,129,130) presented two figures, and 33 (26.1%)(2,9,11,13,19,21,22,24,26,28,34,36,39,40,49,50,63,68,69,76,94,99,100,102\u0026ndash;104,108,109,112,115,117,122,128) presented a single figure, while 32 studies (25.6%)(15,30,31,38,42,47,51\u0026ndash;58,67,75,79,80,89,96,98,105,106,111,113,114,119\u0026ndash;121,124,126,131) did not present any visual maps. The most common combination of figures was the cluster map, cluster rating map, pattern match graph, and go-zone plot (24 studies, 19.2%)(8,20,25,33,59,60,62,66,70,72,73,77,78,82,83,85,87,88,91,95,107,123,125,130).\u0026nbsp;Excluding studies without figures, among the remaining 93 studies (74.4%), cluster maps were the most frequently reported (67 studies, 72.0%)(8\u0026ndash;14,18,20,25\u0026ndash;29,32\u0026ndash;35,37,40,41,43,48,50,59\u0026ndash;66,70\u0026ndash;74,76\u0026ndash;78,81\u0026ndash;88,91\u0026ndash;95,97,99,101,107,110,115,116,118,123,125,127\u0026ndash;130), followed by go-zone plots (59 studies, 63.4%)(2,8,10,12,16\u0026ndash;20,22\u0026ndash;25,27,33,36,37,39,41,43,45,48,59\u0026ndash;62,65,66,68\u0026ndash;74,77,78,81\u0026ndash;88,90\u0026ndash;92,95,97,107,116,118,123,125,127,129,130), pattern match graphs (37 studies, 39.8%)(8,20,21,23,25,29,33,35,44,49,59,60,62,64\u0026ndash;66,70,72,73,77,78,82,83,85,87,88,90,91,93,95,100,107,110,122,123,125,130), cluster rating maps (12 studies, 12.9%)(16,17,32,36,90,102\u0026ndash;104,108,109,112,117), point maps (9 studies, 9.7%)(23,29,35,46,64,65,71,74,118), and point rating maps (6 studies, 6.5%)(14,27,44\u0026ndash;46,69). In addition, one study reported a number-of-clusters versus within-cluster sums of squares plot, which depicts the variability of observations within each cluster(23).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-Insert Table 5 here-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eV. Interpretation phase\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough 104 studies (83.2%) reported the Interpretation step in their methods sections, only 16 studies(2,8,20,23,24,29,34,36,45,46,48,56,97,100,116,118)\u0026nbsp;explicitly described this stage in their results. At this stage, researchers typically convened an interpretive meeting with participants who had been involved in the earlier phases of the study. During these meetings, the results were presented and the analytic processes through which they were generated were explained, followed by structured discussions to allow participants to supplement, clarify, and refine the findings. While differences in perspectives were commonly observed among participants, these discussions generally led to a shared understanding and consensus, culminating in an agreed-upon concept map.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVI. Utilization phase\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen conceptualization is conducted to inform planning, the final concept map may serve as a structural foundation for subsequent planning efforts. However, most included studies concluded at the stage of results presentation, with limited attention to utilization. Consequently, use of GCM outputs was often ambiguously reported and difficult to identify unless explicitly specified in the methods section.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the application of GCM within the realm of implementation science, elucidating prevailing patterns, strengths, and limitations of this approach. The findings of this scoping review reveal a highly uneven distribution of GCM applications across the stages of the implementation process, with the vast majority of studies concentrated in the Determinants stage, and minimal use in Problem definition, Long-term use and implementation outcomes, Scale-up and study design. This pattern suggests that GCM has primarily been adopted where its core strengths—structured stakeholder engagement, idea generation, and prioritization—align most directly with the analytic demands of the implementation process. This may because early-stage problem definition and EBP selection often rely on epidemiological data, literature synthesis, or expert consensus, rather than broad stakeholder mapping, which may explain the limited use of GCM in the problem identification. Conversely, later stages such as sustainment and scale-up emphasize longitudinal outcomes, which are more commonly addressed through trials or other study designs than through concept mapping. In contrast, the determinants stage explicitly centers on understanding context-specific barriers, facilitators, and priorities—questions that are well matched to GCM’s participatory and structuring functions—making GCM a natural methodological choice at this point in the implementation process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearcher behavior and publication norms may further reinforce this concentration. GCM studies are more likely to be undertaken and published when stakeholder-driven idea generation is positioned as the primary analytic contribution, such as identifying determinants or co-designing implementation strategies. In contrast, GCM activities conducted during problem scoping or sustainment planning may be embedded within larger projects and reported only briefly, rather than as standalone studies. Together, these factors suggest that the observed stage imbalance reflects not methodological unsuitability, but rather selective alignment between GCM outputs, stage-specific evidence expectations, and prevailing publication practices. Future research could expand the use of GCM in underrepresented stages, particularly to support early stakeholder alignment and to structure sustainment and scale-up planning, while integrating complementary methods to meet stage-specific evaluation requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis review also identified a marked geographic concentration of GCM studies in high-income countries, with most conducted in North America and Europe and relatively few originating from low- and middle-income countries. This pattern suggests limited global diffusion of GCM and raises concerns regarding equity and representativeness in the current evidence base. One plausible contributor is the widespread reliance on proprietary GCM software: over 80% of included studies used commercial platforms such as Concept System Global MAX™ or GroupWisdom™, while reporting on software costs and analytic burden was uncommon. The financial, technical, and language-related barriers associated with these platforms may constrain uptake in resource-limited settings. Notably, a small number of studies demonstrated the feasibility of conducting GCM using open-source or lower-cost alternatives, including R-based analytic workflows and the dedicated open-source tool R-CMap. However, these approaches typically require greater statistical expertise and may lack the usability of dedicated commercial platforms. Taken together, these findings suggest that software accessibility may influence where GCM is adopted and published, underscoring the importance of continued development and clearer reporting of accessible analytic options to support broader global use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite GCM’s well-defined procedural framework, this review identified substantial inconsistency and incompleteness in reporting across studies. Only 20% of included studies explicitly documented all six core GCM phases, with omissions concentrated at the early Preparation phase and the final Utilization phase. While most studies reported middle analytic steps (e.g., brainstorming, sorting, and map generation), key information regarding how prompts were formulated, how stakeholders were selected, and—critically—how GCM outputs were used to inform implementation decisions was frequently absent. As a result, many studies presented concept maps as end products rather than as inputs into subsequent action.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis pattern has important implications for implementation science. Insufficient reporting of Preparation limits interpretability and reproducibility, as early design decisions strongly shape the concepts generated and prioritized. More importantly, inadequate reporting of Utilization undermines GCM’s translational value: without clear documentation of how concept maps informed strategy selection, adaptation, or decision-making, GCM risks being positioned as a stand-alone research exercise rather than a practical implementation tool. In such cases, the method may appear disproportionately resource-intensive relative to its observable impact, reinforcing perceptions of GCM as a “fancy” methodological add-on rather than a mechanism for actionable change.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address these gaps, we developed a review-derived GCM reporting checklist (Supplementary Material) that specifies minimum reporting elements across all phases, with particular emphasis on Preparation and Utilization. The checklist is intended as a pragmatic, evidence-informed tool to support transparent reporting and to make explicit the pathway from stakeholder-generated concepts to implementation-relevant actions. Although not a formal consensus guideline, it responds directly to deficiencies identified in this review and provides a foundation for future consensus-based reporting standards.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis review confirms that GCM offers several distinctive strengths for implementation science, particularly its capacity to engage diverse stakeholders in the co-production of structured and prioritized representations of complex implementation problems. By combining participatory input with quantitative structuring, GCM can minimize dominance by individual experts, promote shared meaning and ownership across stakeholder groups, and translate qualitative insights into visual outputs that are accessible to decision-makers. In addition, GCM enables the purposeful inclusion of stakeholders across geographic regions, organizational levels, and professional disciplines, supporting more inclusive and transparent implementation planning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, important methodological and practical limitations were consistently reported across studies. Most GCM applications relied on small, non-random samples, reflecting the time- and resource-intensive nature of the method and raising concerns about reliability, validity, and generalizability. Participant burden—particularly during cognitively demanding sorting and rating tasks—was frequently associated with attrition, with one study reporting that only 40% of participants completed the full mapping process(11). Such attrition may introduce participation bias, as perspectives from less-engaged or time-constrained stakeholders remain underrepresented. In addition, while GCM is less resource-intensive than in-depth interviews, it prioritizes breadth over depth and offers limited capacity to explore novel or nuanced concepts. The method primarily captures self-reported perceptions of barriers and facilitators, which function as sense-making representations that may vary across organizational contexts and do not always correspond directly to observed practice. Further constraints include language requirements that may exclude non-native speakers and the potential for brainstorming phases to be influenced by more vocal participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, GCM’s value lies in structuring and prioritizing stakeholder knowledge to inform implementation decision-making, while its limitations underscore the importance of integrating GCM with complementary methods—such as qualitative interviews, surveys, or hybrid effectiveness–implementation designs—to deepen interpretation and support evaluation. Improving recruitment, retention, and reporting practices, including transparent documentation of resource requirements and participation patterns, will be essential to ensuring that GCM remains both methodologically rigorous and practically relevant in implementation science.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review shows that GCM occupies a distinctive but currently underutilized role in implementation science. To date, GCM has been used predominantly to structure and prioritize implementation determinants, with far more limited application to later-stage tasks such as strategy selection, sustainment planning, and scale-up. When intentionally designed and explicitly linked to implementation decisions, GCM can support stakeholder alignment, contextual tailoring, and transparent prioritization. However, inconsistent reporting—particularly regarding preparation and utilization—often obscures how GCM outputs inform action. To realize its full potential, future implementation research should position GCM as a decision-support method rather than a stand-alone analytic exercise, integrate it with complementary designs, and explicitly document its contribution to implementation planning and outcomes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGroup Concept Mapping - Sustainability Methods [Internet]. [cited 2025 Nov 25]. Available from: https://sustainabilitymethods.org/index.php/Group_Concept_Mapping\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThepha T, Marais D, Bell J, Muangpin S. Concept mapping to reach consensus on a 6-month exclusive breastfeeding strategy model to improve the rate in Northeast Thailand. Maternal \u0026amp; child nutrition. 2019;15(4):e12823.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022 Apr;20(4):953\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O\u0026rsquo;Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVeritas Health Innovation. Covidence Systematic Review Software [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://www.covidence.org\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorporation for Digital Scholarship. Zotero [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://www.zotero.org\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu D (Roman), Samu GC, Chen J. Advancing mental health service delivery in low-resource settings. The Lancet Global Health. 2024 Apr;12(4):e543\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTsui J, Shin M, Sloan K, Mackie TI, Garcia S, Fehrenbacher AE, et al. Use of concept mapping to inform a participatory engagement approach for implementation of evidence-based HPV vaccination strategies in safety-net clinics. Implementation science communications. 2024;5(1):71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStamatakis KA, Shrestha A, Biggs J, Jimenez PN, Pendley C, Francioni A, et al. Identifying and Prioritizing Factors to Improve Implementation of an Evidence-Based Program for Child Maltreatment Prevention in Rural Missouri Communities. Glob Implement Res Appl. 2024;4(4):371\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStaley K, Donaldson A, Mosler AB, O\u0026rsquo;Halloran P, Seal E, Forsyth A, et al. Understanding the challenges of injury in providing sport programmes for physically inactive women: concept mapping insights from programme deliverers. Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention. 2024;30(5):400\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSawyer-Mays AN, Combs M, Anbil A, Rudy AK, Lee JGL, Breland A, et al. Reactions to a hypothetical reduced nicotine content cigarette policy among sexual- and gender-minoritized communities: a concept mapping study. Nicotine \u0026amp; tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco [Internet]. 2024;(drz, 9815751). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS\u0026amp;CSC=Y\u0026amp;NEWS=N\u0026amp;PAGE=fulltext\u0026amp;D=medp\u0026amp;DO=10.1093%2fntr%2fntae275https://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:medp\u0026amp;genre=article\u0026amp;id=pmid:39572868\u0026amp;id=doi:10.1093%2Fntr%2Fntae275\u0026amp;issn=1462-2203\u0026amp;volume=\u0026amp;issue=\u0026amp;spag\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaw PS, Balqis-Ali NZ, Quek KF, Ahmad B, Fun WH, Sararaks S, et al. Organizational strategies in promoting person-centered primary care: A participatory concept mapping study. International Journal of Healthcare Management. 2024;17(3):517\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaragosa AC, Flatt JD, Buccini G. Using concept mapping to co-create implementation strategies to address maternal-child food insecurity during the first 1000 days of life. Maternal \u0026amp; child nutrition. 2024;(101201025):e13739.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamanadhan S, Cruz JL, Weese M, Kirk S, Rivard MK, Eisenkraft A, et al. Differing conceptual maps of skills for implementing evidence-based interventions held by community-based organization practitioners and academics: A multidimensional scaling comparison. Translational behavioral medicine [Internet]. 2024;(101554668). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS\u0026amp;CSC=Y\u0026amp;NEWS=N\u0026amp;PAGE=fulltext\u0026amp;D=medp\u0026amp;DO=10.1093%2ftbm%2fibae051https://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:medp\u0026amp;genre=article\u0026amp;id=pmid:39566021\u0026amp;id=doi:10.1093%2Ftbm%2Fibae051\u0026amp;issn=1613-9860\u0026amp;volume=\u0026amp;issue=\u0026amp;spag\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalmer KNB, Mantina NM, Adegboyega A, Sokale IO, Pryor K, Suero-Davis A, et al. Abstract B089: A community-based participatory approach to developing a salon-based HPV self-collection intervention. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers \u0026amp; Prevention. 2024 Sept 21;33(9_Supplement):B089\u0026ndash;B089.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkamura KH, Palafu T, An K, Marshall SM, Chin SK, Stern KA, et al. \u0026ldquo;Allowing space for voice...all our voices:\u0026rdquo; Understanding Ho\u0026rsquo;ouna Pono implementation through educational leadership perspectives in rural Hawai\u0026rsquo;i schools. School mental health. 2024;16(3):793\u0026ndash;807.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewlon JL, Campi JA, Rafie S, Meredith AH. Determining user implementation needs for pharmacist-prescribed contraception using concept mapping: A participatory, multiple stakeholder approach. Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy. 2024;16(9918266300706676):100525.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuteberget LS, Donaldson A, Andersen LN, Roos EM, Moller M. The HAPPY concept mapping study: \u0026ldquo;To prevent injuries in young handball players it\u0026rsquo;s important to...\u0026rdquo; - Perceptions among stakeholders. Journal of science and medicine in sport [Internet]. 2024;(c54, 9812598). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS\u0026amp;CSC=Y\u0026amp;NEWS=N\u0026amp;PAGE=fulltext\u0026amp;D=medp\u0026amp;DO=10.1016%2fj.jsams.2024.09.004https://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:medp\u0026amp;genre=article\u0026amp;id=pmid:39353839\u0026amp;id=doi:10.1016%2Fj.jsams.2024.09.004\u0026amp;issn=1878-1861\u0026amp;volume=\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaduka L, Olale J, Mutai J, Christelle E, Mbuka J, Ochieng R, et al. Readiness of primary healthcare and community markets for joint delivery of cardiovascular disease prevention services in Kenya: an observational feasibility study of Health Kiosks in Markets (HEKIMA). BMJ open. 2024;14(11):e081993.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGullahorn B, Kuo I, Robinson AM, Bailey J, Loken J, Taggart T. Identifying facilitators and barriers to the uptake of medication for opioid use disorder in Washington, DC: A community-engaged concept mapping approach. PloS one. 2024;19(7):e0306931.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuevara SA, Donaldson A, Keegan RJ, Appaneal RN, Smyth EA, Waddington G, et al. Gender and socioecological level differences in stakeholders\u0026rsquo; perceptions of athlete attrition factors in an Australian high-performance pathway system. Journal of science and medicine in sport. 2024;27(3):197\u0026ndash;203.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGobin R, Thomas T, Goberdhan S, Sharma M, Nasiiro R, Emmanuel R, et al. Readiness of primary care centres for a community-based intervention to prevent and control noncommunicable diseases in the Caribbean: A participatory, mixed-methods study. PloS one. 2024;19(4):e0301503.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDrozd F, Pettersen Sandtro H, Leksbo TS, Haga SM, Jacobsen H, Storksen HT. Identifying and developing strategies for implementation of a guided internet- and mobile-based infant sleep intervention in well-baby and community mental health clinics using group concept mapping. BMC health services research. 2024;24(1):175.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDevotta K, O\u0026rsquo;Campo P, Bender J, Lofters AK. Important and Feasible Actions to Address Cervical Screening Participation amongst South Asian Women in Ontario: A Concept Mapping Study with Service Users and Service Providers. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont). 2024;31(7):4038\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConjaerts M, Stoyanov S, Edelman E, Kirschner P, de Groot R. Ensuring a sustainable and healthy primary school of the future: Finding answers through group concept mapping. Health Education Journal. 2024;83(5):560\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarmichael MA, Roberts AH, Donaldson A, Clarke AC. Implementing menstrual cycle tracking: A pilot concept mapping study investigating considerations of coaches, support staff, and female athletes. Journal of science and medicine in sport. 2024;27(8):557\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBosakova L, Dankulincova Veselska Z, Filakovska Bobakova D. How to improve the system of care for adolescents with emotional and behavioural problems from the perspective of care providers: a concept mapping approach. Health research policy and systems. 2024;22(1):9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlsoghier A, Alnutaifi A, Alotaibi O, Alotaibi A, Alharbi A, Almubarak N, et al. Barriers and facilitators for oral health screening among tobacco users: a mixed-methods study. BMC oral health. 2024;24(1):306.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad F, Culley L, Baldeo N, Haque KA, Suleman A. Concept Mapping the Ways to Support Mental Health and Mental Well-being of Canadian Racialized and Immigrant Communities. Journal of immigrant and minority health [Internet]. 2024;(101256527). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS\u0026amp;CSC=Y\u0026amp;NEWS=N\u0026amp;PAGE=fulltext\u0026amp;D=medp\u0026amp;DO=10.1007%2fs10903-024-01647-whttps://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:medp\u0026amp;genre=article\u0026amp;id=pmid:39576366\u0026amp;id=doi:10.1007%2Fs10903-024-01647-w\u0026amp;issn=1557-1912\u0026amp;volume=\u0026amp;i\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZaman M, de Vale ML, Coultas C, Goff L, Mernagh-Iles A, L\u0026rsquo;Esperance V, et al. Factors affecting the delivery of community-based salon interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease and breast cancer among ethnically diverse women in South London: a concept-mapping approach. Lancet (London, England). 2023;402 Suppl 1(2985213r, l0s, 0053266):S96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams B, DeFosset A, Reddy V, Wynn M, Blunt K, Rosas S, et al. ORGANIZATIONAL ASSETS AND BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCE-BASED CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PROGRAMMING IN RURAL AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES: EARLY FINDINGS OF AN INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY-ENGAGED ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING PROCESS. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2023;38((Williams B.) Social Medicine-Center for Health Equity Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States(DeFosset A.) Social Medicine, Center for Health Equity Research, UNC Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill,):S193.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTipre M, Hardy C, Bowman T, Glover M, Gullet P, Baity D, et al. Concept Mapping with Black Men: Barriers to Prostate Cancer Screening and Solutions. Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education. 2023;38(6):1808\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimoes Correa Galendi J, Siefen AC, Moretti DM, Yeo SY, Grull H, Bratke G, et al. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Painful Bone Metastases in Europe, A Group Concept Mapping Study. International journal of environmental research and public health [Internet]. 2023;20(2). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS\u0026amp;CSC=Y\u0026amp;NEWS=N\u0026amp;PAGE=fulltext\u0026amp;D=med23\u0026amp;DO=10.3390%2fijerph20021084https://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:med23\u0026amp;genre=article\u0026amp;id=pmid:36673840\u0026amp;id=doi:10.3390%2Fijerph20021084\u0026amp;issn=1660-4601\u0026amp;volume=20\u0026amp;issue\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShrestha A, Stamatakis K, Ballard J, Burgess A, Baker E. Engaging rural communities to incorporate social determinants in developing strategies to improve access to health care in the Missouri Bootheel counties. Rural and remote health. 2023;23(1):7678.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMion LC, Tan A, Brockman A, Tate JA, Vasilevskis EE, Pun BT, et al. An Exploration of Critical Care Professionals\u0026rsquo; Strategies to Enhance Daily Implementation of the Assess, Prevent, and Manage Pain; Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials; Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; Ear. Critical Care Explorations. 2023;5(3):e0872.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuschke S, Moodie S, Kirubalingam K, O\u0026rsquo;Hagan R, Glista D. Parents\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of the Factors Influencing the Uptake of Remote Pediatric Hearing Aid Support: Development of a Conceptual Framework. JMIR pediatrics and parenting. 2023;6(101727244):e47358.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlappe ES, Joukes E, Cornet R, de Keizer NF. Effective and feasible interventions to improve structured EHR data registration and exchange: A concept mapping approach and exploration of practical examples in the Netherlands. International journal of medical informatics. 2023;173(ct4, 9711057):105023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaba A, LoVette A, Pridgen B, Taylor M, Woodward E, Rosal MC, et al. Identifying strategies to advance equitable implementation of co-occurring mental health and substance use disorder treatment in drug treatment courts: A study protocol. Journal of clinical and translational science. 2023;7(1):e80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooks R, Rosenberg-Carlson E, Nieto O, Uskup D, Morales K. Developing Implementation Strategies to Enhance PrEP Delivery to Immigrant Latino Men who have Sex with Men. Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care. 2023;22((Brooks R.; Rosenberg-Carlson E.; Nieto O.; Uskup D.; Morales K.) UCLA Department of Family Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, United States):22\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBirken SA, Wagi CR, Peluso AG, Kegler MC, Baloh J, Adsul P, et al. Toward a more comprehensive understanding of organizational influences on implementation: the organization theory for implementation science framework. Frontiers in health services. 2023;3(9918334887706676):1142598.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang X, Zhao J, Li X, Yan L, Hao Y, Liu J. Unfolding and characterizing the barriers and facilitators of scaling-up evidence-based interventions from the stakeholders\u0026rsquo; perspective: a concept mapping approach. JBI evidence implementation. 2022;20(2):117\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVis C, Kleiboer A, Mol M, Pedersen CD, Finch T, Smit J, et al. Organisational implementation climate in implementing internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy for depression. BMC health services research. 2022;22(1):720.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor RA, Fiellin D, D\u0026rsquo;Onofrio G, Venkatesh A. Identifying opioid-related electronic health record phenotypes for emergency care research and surveillance: An expert consensus driven concept mapping process. Substance abuse. 2022;43(1):841\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSijben J, Rainey L, Fitzgerald RC, Wani SB, Kolb JM, Peters Y, et al. DUTCH, UK AND US PROFESSIONALS\u0026rsquo; PERCEPTIONS OF SCREENING FOR BARRETT\u0026rsquo;S ESOPHAGUS AND ESOPHAGEAL ADENOCARCINOMA: A CONCEPT MAPPING STUDY. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(7):S-723.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeaton CL, Rondier P, Rush KL, Li EPH, Plamondon K, Pesut B, et al. Community stakeholder-driven technology solutions towards rural health equity: A concept mapping study in Western Canada. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2022;25(6):3202\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoczniewska M, Hedberg Rundgren E, Hasson H, Bakker AB, von Thiele Schwarz U. How Should Job Crafting Interventions Be Implemented to Make Their Effects Last? Protocol for a Group Concept Mapping Study. International journal of environmental research and public health [Internet]. 2022;19(21). Available from: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS\u0026amp;CSC=Y\u0026amp;NEWS=N\u0026amp;PAGE=fulltext\u0026amp;D=med22\u0026amp;DO=10.3390%2fijerph192113922https://beaumont.tdnetdiscover.com/resolver?sid=OVID:med22\u0026amp;genre=article\u0026amp;id=pmid:36360800\u0026amp;id=doi:10.3390%2Fijerph192113922\u0026amp;issn=1660-4601\u0026amp;volume=19\u0026amp;iss\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOkamura KH, Okamoto SK, Marshall SM, Chin SK, Garcia PM, Powell BJ, et al. Ho\u0026rsquo;ouna Pono implementation: applying concept mapping to a culturally grounded substance use prevention curriculum in rural Hawai\u0026rsquo;i schools. Implementation science communications. 2022;3(1):111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHosseini N, Mostafavi SM, Zendehdel K, Eslami S. Factors affecting clinicians\u0026rsquo; adherence to principles of diagnosis documentation: A concept mapping approach for improved decision-making. Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia. 2022;51(3):149\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalendi J, Siefen AC, Moretti D, Yeo SY, Bratke G, Gr\u0026uuml;ll H, et al. Factors Influencing the Uptake of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Painful Bone Metastases in Europe: A Group Concept Mapping Study. Value in Health. 2022;25(12):S385.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinnigan C, Brown J, Al-Adeimi M, Al-Abed R. Barriers to Accessing Mental Health Services by Migrant Youth. Community mental health journal. 2022;58(6):1101\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDulin A, Mealy R, Whittaker S, Cardel M, Wang J, Risica PM, et al. Identifying Barriers to and Facilitators of Using a Mobile Fruit and Vegetable Market Intervention Delivered to Low-Income Housing Sites: A Concept Mapping Study. Health education \u0026amp; behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education. 2022;49(1):159\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCook KA, Bergeron K. Palliative care for young adults with life-limiting conditions: public health recommendations. BMJ supportive \u0026amp; palliative care. 2022;12(e2):e256\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAshe MC, Azim FT, Ariza-Vega P, Burns J, Clemson L, Grover S, et al. Determinants of implementing reablement into research or practice: A concept mapping study. Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy. 2022;27(3):e1949.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThepha T, Marais D, Bell J, Muangpin S. The Evaluation of Training for Health-Care Professionals and Community Leaders Regarding 6-Month Exclusive Breastfeeding in Northeast Thailand. The Journal of perinatal education. 2021;30(2):71\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSvobodova I, Filakovska Bobakova D, Bosakova L, Dankulincova Veselska Z. How to improve access to health care for Roma living in social exclusion: a concept mapping study. International journal for equity in health. 2021;20(1):61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSommerfeld DH, Granholm E, Holden J, Seijo C, Rapoport CS, Mueser KT, et al. Concept mapping study of stakeholder perceptions of implementation of cognitive-behavioral social skills training on assertive community treatment teams. Psychological services. 2021;18(1):33\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeppey M, Tour\u0026eacute; L, Ridde V. Defining an action-research\u0026rsquo;s content to improve a policy supporting indigents\u0026rsquo; health in Mali: A concept mapping. Journal of Global Health Reports [Internet]. 2021;5. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85132123342\u0026amp;doi=10.29392%2f001c.21956\u0026amp;partnerID=40\u0026amp;md5=eec466df11037a48de236e10ece51a71\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRichter Sundberg L, Christianson M, Wiklund M, Hurtig AK, Goicolea I. How can we strengthen mental health services in Swedish youth clinics? A health policy and systems study protocol. BMJ open. 2021;11(10):e048922.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalone S, Prewitt K, Hackett R, Lin JC, McKay V, Walsh-Bailey C, et al. The Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool: measuring organizational capacity to promote sustainability in healthcare. Implementation science communications. 2021;2(1):77.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMahabir DF, O\u0026rsquo;Campo P, Lofters A, Shankardass K, Salmon C, Muntaner C. Experiences of everyday racism in Toronto\u0026rsquo;s health care system: a concept mapping study. International Journal for Equity in Health [Internet]. 2021;20(1). Available from: http://www.embase.j.sjuku.top/search/results?subaction=viewrecord\u0026amp;id=L2010744150\u0026amp;from=export\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJenkins AM, Burns D, Horick R, Spicer B, Vaughn LM, Woodward J. Adolescents and Young Adults With Spina Bifida Transitioning to Adulthood: A Comprehensive Community-Based Needs Assessment. Academic pediatrics. 2021;21(5):858\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFede J, Kogut SJ, Hayward A, Stevenson JF, Willey-Temkin C, Fournier H, et al. Improving the quality and quantity of clinical and translational research statewide: An application of group concept mapping. Journal of clinical and translational science. 2021;5(1):e70.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAst RS, Banyard VL, Burnham J, Edwards KM. Community Conversations on Relationship Violence: Town Variations in Prevention Perceptions through Concept Mapping. American journal of community psychology. 2021;67(3\u0026ndash;4):353\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAskelson N, Ryan G, McRee AL, Farris PE, Shannon J, Hanson J, et al. Using Concept Mapping to Identify Opportunities for HPV Vaccination Efforts: Perspectives from the Midwest and West Coast. Evaluation and program planning. 2021;89(7801727, eob):102010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAarons GA, Reeder K, Sam-Agudu NA, Vorkoper S, Sturke R. Implementation determinants and mechanisms for the prevention and treatment of adolescent HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: concept mapping of the NIH Fogarty International Center Adolescent HIV Implementation Science Alliance (AHISA) initiative. Implement Sci Commun [Internet]. 2021 Dec [cited 2025 July 18];2(1). Available from: https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43058-021-00156-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaughn LM, Sunny CE, Lindquist-Grantz R, King C, Brent D, Boyd S, et al. Successful Suicide Screening in the Pediatric Emergency Department: Youth, Parent, Researcher, and Clinician Perspectives. Archives of suicide research : official journal of the International Academy for Suicide Research. 2020;24(sup1):124\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePruett JL, Weigel EG. Concept Map Assessment Reveals Short-Term Community-Engaged Fieldwork Enhances Sustainability Knowledge. CBE life sciences education. 2020;19(3):ar38.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoel Racine A, Garbarino JM, Corrion K, D\u0026rsquo;Arripe-Longueville F, Massiera B, Vuillemin A. Perceptions of barriers and levers of health-enhancing physical activity policies in mid-size French municipalities. Health research policy and systems. 2020;18(1):62.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNielsen KT, la Cour K, Christensen JR, Pilegaard MS, von Bulow C, Brandt A, et al. Lessons learned about occupation-focused and occupation-based interventions: A synthesis using group concept mapping methodology. Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy. 2020;27(7):481\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKwok EYL, Moodie STF, Cunningham BJ, Oram Cardy JE. Selecting and tailoring implementation interventions: a concept mapping approach. BMC health services research. 2020;20(1):385.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKabukye JK, de Keizer N, Cornet R. Elicitation and prioritization of requirements for electronic health records for oncology in low resource settings: A concept mapping study. International journal of medical informatics. 2020;135(ct4, 9711057):104055.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEbrahimi-Madiseh A, Eikelboom RH, Bennett RJ, Upson GS, Friedland PL, Swanepoel DW, et al. What Influences Decision-Making for Cochlear Implantation in Adults? Exploring Barriers and Drivers From a Multistakeholder Perspective. Ear and hearing. 2020;41(6):1752\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDopp AR, Parisi KE, Munson SA, Lyon AR. Aligning implementation and user-centered design strategies to enhance the impact of health services: results from a concept mapping study. Implementation science communications. 2020;1(101764360):17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAifah A, Onakomaiya D, Iwelunmor J, Oladele D, Gbajabiamila T, Obiezu-Umeh C, et al. Nurses\u0026rsquo; perceptions on implementing a task-shifting/sharing strategy for hypertension management in patients with HIV in Nigeria: a group concept mapping study. Implementation science communications. 2020;1(101764360):58.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThies KM, Anderson D, Beals-Reid C. Project ECHO Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Analysis of Recommendations by Expert Faculty and the Process of Knowledge Translation. The Journal of continuing education in the health professions. 2019;39(3):194\u0026ndash;200.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStaley K, Donaldson A, Randle E, Nicholson M, O\u0026rsquo;Halloran P, Nelson R, et al. Challenges for sport organisations developing and delivering non-traditional social sport products for insufficiently active populations. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 2019;43(4):373\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith F, Gunnarsdottir KA, Genell A, McLinden D, Vaughn L, Garelius H, et al. Evaluating the implementation and use of the regional cancer plan in Western Sweden through concept mapping. International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care. 2019;31(7):44\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePhad A, Johnston S, Tabak RG, Mazzucca S, Haire-Joshu D. Developing priorities to achieve health equity through diabetes translation research: a concept mapping study. BMJ open diabetes research \u0026amp; care. 2019;7(1):e000851.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones BE, Collingridge DS, Vines CG, Post H, Holmen J, Allen TL, et al. CDS in a Learning Health Care System: Identifying Physicians\u0026rsquo; Reasons for Rejection of Best-Practice Recommendations in Pneumonia through Computerized Clinical Decision Support. Applied clinical informatics. 2019;10(1):1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDopp AR, Parisi KE, Munson SA, Lyon AR. Integrating implementation and user-centred design strategies to enhance the impact of health services: protocol from a concept mapping study. Health research policy and systems. 2019;17(1):1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonaldson A, Callaghan A, Bizzini M, Jowett A, Keyzer P, Nicholson M. A concept mapping approach to identifying the barriers to implementing an evidence-based sports injury prevention programme. Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention. 2019;25(4):244\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAntoniou T, Mishra S, Matheson F, Smith-Merrill D, Challacombe L, Rowe J, et al. Using concept mapping to inform the development of a transitional reintegration intervention program for formerly incarcerated people with HIV. BMC health services research. 2019;19(1):761.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgeberg E, Bunke S, Lucander K, Nilsen P, Donaldson A. Facilitators to support the implementation of injury prevention training in youth handball: A concept mapping approach. Scandinavian journal of medicine \u0026amp; science in sports. 2019;29(2):275\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAarons GA, Seijo C, Green AE, Moullin JC, Hasson H, von Thiele Schwarz U, et al. Fostering international collaboration in implementation science and research: a concept mapping exploratory study. BMC research notes. 2019;12(1):778.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVelonis A, Forst L. Outreach to Low-Wage and Precarious Workers: Concept Mapping for Public Health Officers. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine. 2018;60(11):e610\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBirken SA, Rohweder CL, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Scott J, Leeman J, et al. T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implementation science : IS. 2018;13(1):143.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTabak RG, Padek MM, Kerner JF, Stange KC, Proctor EK, Dobbins MJ, et al. Dissemination and Implementation Science Training Needs: Insights From Practitioners and Researchers. American journal of preventive medicine. 2017;52(3 Suppl 3):S322\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePowell BJ, Stanick CF, Halko HM, Dorsey CN, Weiner BJ, Barwick MA, et al. Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping. Implementation science : IS. 2017;12(1):118.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDagenais C, Pinard R, St-Pierre M, Briand-Lamarche M, Cantave AK, Peladeau N. Using concept mapping to identify conditions that foster knowledge translation from the perspective of school practitioners. Research Evaluation. 2016;25(1):70\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecerril-Montekio V, Alcalde-Rabanal J, Darney BG, Orozco-Nunez E. Using systematized tacit knowledge to prioritize implementation challenges in existing maternal health programs: implications for the post MDG era. Health policy and planning. 2016;31(8):1031\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeinstein LC, LaNoue M, Hurley K, Sifri R, Myers R. Using Concept Mapping to Explore Barriers and Facilitators to Breast Cancer Screening in Formerly Homeless Women with Serious Mental Illness. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved. 2015;26(3):908\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implementation science : IS. 2015;10(101258411):109.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSzaflarski M, Vaughn LM, McLinden D, Wess Y, Ruffner A. Using concept mapping to mobilize a Black faith community to address HIV. International public health journal. 2015;7(1):117\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProctor E, Luke D, Calhoun A, McMillen C, Brownson R, McCrary S, et al. Sustainability of evidence-based healthcare: research agenda, methodological advances, and infrastructure support. Implementation science : IS. 2015;10(101258411):88.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL Allen M, Schaleben-Boateng D, Davey CS, Hang M, Pergament S. Concept Mapping as an Approach to Facilitate Participatory Intervention Building. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2015;9(4):599\u0026ndash;608.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGranholm E, Holden JL, Sommerfeld D, Rufener C, Perivoliotis D, Mueser K, et al. Enhancing assertive community treatment with cognitive behavioral social skills training for schizophrenia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16(101263253):438.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnson DB, Quinn E, Sitaker M, Ammerman A, Byker C, Dean W, et al. Developing an agenda for research about policies to improve access to healthy foods in rural communities: a concept mapping study. BMC public health. 2014;14(100968562):592.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMasse LC, Naiman D, Naylor PJ. From policy to practice: implementation of physical activity and food policies in schools. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity. 2013;10(101217089):71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLobb R, Pinto AD, Lofters A. Using concept mapping in the knowledge-to-action process to compare stakeholder opinions on barriers to use of cancer screening among South Asians. Implementation science : IS. 2013;8(101258411):37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen AE, Fettes DL, Aarons GA. A concept mapping approach to guide and understand dissemination and implementation. The journal of behavioral health services \u0026amp; research. 2012;39(4):362\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad F, Norman C, O\u0026rsquo;Campo P. What is needed to implement a computer-assisted health risk assessment tool? An exploratory concept mapping study. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2012;12(101088682):149.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad F, Mahmood S, Pietkiewicz I, McDonald L, Ginsburg O. Concept mapping with South Asian immigrant women: barriers to mammography and solutions. Journal of immigrant and minority health. 2012;14(2):242\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePoost-Foroosh L, Jennings MB, Shaw L, Meston CN, Cheesman MF. Factors in client-clinician interaction that influence hearing aid adoption. Trends in amplification. 2011;15(3):127\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen AE, Aarons GA. A comparison of policy and direct practice stakeholder perceptions of factors affecting evidence-based practice implementation using concept mapping. Implementation Science [Internet]. 2011;6(1). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-80052597025\u0026amp;doi=10.1186%2f1748-5908-6-104\u0026amp;partnerID=40\u0026amp;md5=c42273398c644bba1df8dbab48231b48\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkinner K, Hanning RM, Tsuji LJS. Barriers and supports for healthy eating and physical activity for First Nation youths in northern Canada. International journal of circumpolar health. 2006;65(2):148\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDolcourt JL, Zuckerman G, Warner K. Learners\u0026rsquo; decisions for attending Pediatric Grand Rounds: a qualitative and quantitative study. BMC medical education. 2006;6(101088679):26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConcept Mapping of Implementation Research Priorities in Rural Cancer Control: A Two-Phased Project. 2018;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAarons GA, Wells RS, Zagursky K, Fettes DL, Palinkas LA. Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Community Mental Health Agencies: A Multiple Stakeholder Analysis. Am J Public Health. 2009 Nov;99(11):2087\u0026ndash;95.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShern DL, Trochim WMK, LaComb CA. The use of concept mapping for assessing fidelity of model transfer: An example from psychiatric rehabilitation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 1995 Apr;18(2):143\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVinson CA. Using Concept Mapping to Develop a Conceptual Framework for Creating Virtual Communities of Practice to Translate Cancer Research into Practice. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014 Apr 24;11:130280.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, et al. Expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study. Implementation Sci. 2014 Dec;9(1):39.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRainey L, van der Waal D, Donnelly LS, Evans DG, Wengstrom Y, Broeders M. Women\u0026rsquo;s decision-making regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening and prevention from the perspective of international healthcare professionals. PloS one. 2018;13(6):e0197772.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNielsen B, Slinning K, Weie Oddli H, Drozd F. Identification of Implementation Strategies Used for the Circle of Security-Virginia Family Model Intervention: Concept Mapping Study. JMIR research protocols. 2018;7(6):e10312.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuunders TJM, van Bon-Martens MJH, van de Goor IAM, Paulussen TGWM, van Oers HAM. Towards local implementation of Dutch health policy guidelines: a concept-mapping approach. Health promotion international. 2018;33(4):635\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHojberg H, Rasmussen CDN, Osborne RH, Jorgensen MB. Identifying a practice-based implementation framework for sustainable interventions for improving the evolving working environment: Hitting the Moving Target Framework. Applied ergonomics. 2018;67(cyz, 0261412):170\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Engen-Verheul MM, Peek N, Haafkens JA, Joukes E, Vromen T, Jaspers MWM, et al. What is needed to implement a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits to improve care quality: A concept mapping study among cardiac rehabilitation teams. International journal of medical informatics. 2017;97(ct4, 9711057):76\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuud MP, Raanaas RK, Bjelland M. Caregivers\u0026rsquo; perception of factors associated with a healthy diet among people with intellectual disability living in community residences: A Concept mapping method. Research in developmental disabilities. 2016;59(8709782, rid):202\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJoukes E, Cornet R, de Bruijne MC, de Keizer NF. Eliciting end-user expectations to guide the implementation process of a new electronic health record: A case study using concept mapping. International journal of medical informatics. 2016;87(ct4, 9711057):111\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBradbury-Jones C, Breckenridge JP, Devaney J, Duncan F, Kroll T, Lazenbatt A, et al. Priorities and strategies for improving disabled women\u0026rsquo;s access to maternity services when they are affected by domestic abuse: a multi-method study using concept maps. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2015;15(100967799):350.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSranacharoenpong K, Hanning RM. Developing a diabetes prevention education programme for community health-care workers in Thailand: formative findings. Primary health care research \u0026amp; development. 2011;12(4):357\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlkahtani KDF. Using concept mapping to improve parent implementation of positive behavioral interventions for children with challenging behaviors. International Education Studies. 2013;6(11):47\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaoud N, Jung YE, Sheikh Muhammad A, Weinstein R, Qaadny A, Ghattas F, et al. Facilitators and barriers to smoking cessation among minority men using the behavioral-ecological model and Behavior Change Wheel: A concept mapping study. PloS one. 2018;13(10):e0204657.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWutzke S, Roberts N, Willis C, Best A, Wilson A, Trochim W. Setting strategy for system change: using concept mapping to prioritise national action for chronic disease prevention. Health research policy and systems. 2017;15(1):69.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOgden K, Barr J, Greenfield D. Determining requirements for patient-centred care: a participatory concept mapping study. BMC health services research. 2017;17(1):780.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDawson AP, Cargo M, Stewart H, Chong A, Daniel M. Identifying multi-level culturally appropriate smoking cessation strategies for Aboriginal health staff: a concept mapping approach. Health education research. 2013;28(1):31\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAppleby NJ, Dunt D, Southern DM, Young D. General practice integration in Australia. Primary health services provider and consumer perceptions of barriers and solutions. Australian family physician. 1999;28(8):858\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlackstone S, Iwelunmor J, Plange-Rhule J, Gyamfi J, Quakyi NK, Ntim M, et al. Sustaining Nurse-Led Task-Shifting Strategies for Hypertension Control: A Concept Mapping Study to Inform Evidence-Based Practice. Worldviews on evidence-based nursing. 2017;14(5):350\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAarons GA, Sommerfeld DH, Chi BH, Ezeanolue EE, Sturke R, Guay L, et al. Concept Mapping of PMTCT Implementation Challenges and Solutions Across 6 sub-Saharan African Countries in the NIH-PEPFAR PMTCT Implementation Science Alliance. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999). 2016;72 Suppl 2(100892005):S202-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIwelunmor J, Blackstone S, Gyamfi J, Airhihenbuwa C, Plange-Rhule J, Tayo B, et al. A Concept Mapping Study of Physicians\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Factors Influencing Management and Control of Hypertension in Sub-Saharan Africa. International journal of hypertension. 2015;2015(101538881):412804.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalvador JG, Altschul D, Rosas SR, Goldman AW, Feldstein Ewing SW. Use of concept mapping to support evidence-based practice implementation improvement in rural areas. Journal of Rural Mental Health. 2018;42(1):3\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReis RS, Kelly CM, Parra DC, Barros M, Gomes G, Malta D, et al. Developing a research agenda for promoting physical activity in Brazil through environmental and policy change. Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health. 2012;32(2):93\u0026ndash;100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKane M, Trochim W. Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation [Internet]. 2455 Teller Road,\u0026nbsp;Thousand Oaks\u0026nbsp;California\u0026nbsp;91320\u0026nbsp;United States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2007 [cited 2025 Dec 16]. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/concept-mapping-for-planning-and-evaluation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrochim WMK. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 1989 Jan;12(1):1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrochim W, Kane M. Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2005 June 1;17(3):187\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurke JG, O\u0026rsquo;Campo P, Peak GL, Gielen AC, McDonnell KA, Trochim WMK. An Introduction to Concept Mapping as a Participatory Public Health Research Method. Qual Health Res. 2005 Dec;15(10):1392\u0026ndash;410.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosas SR, Kane M. Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2012 May;35(2):236\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1. Pubmed Search Strategy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 553px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. (\u0026ldquo;group concept map*\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;concept map*\u0026rdquo; or GCM).ti,ab,kf.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 553px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. (\u0026ldquo;structured conceptualization\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;concept systems\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Concept Systems Global MAX\u0026trade;\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;Group Wisdom\u0026rdquo;). ti,ab,kf.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 553px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. 1 OR 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 553px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. exp implementation science/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 553px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. (implementation adj2 (research* or stud* or determinant* or strateg* or approach* or science* or evaluation* or process* or outcome*)).ti,ab,kf.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 553px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. (dissemination adj2 (research* science* or implementa*)).ti,ab,kf.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 553px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7. (\u0026quot;d\u0026amp;I\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;knowledge transfer\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;knowledge translation\u0026rdquo;).ti,ab,kf.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 553px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8. (acceptab* or adopt* or appropriate* or feasib* or fidelity or cost or reach or penetration or sustainability or sustainment or diffusion or hybrid type,).ti,ab,kf.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 553px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9. 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 553px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10. 3 AND 9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: exp = explode; .ti,ab,kf. = searches in title, abstract, and author keywords\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDetails of the data extraction\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 99px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCategory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSubcategory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformation extracted\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 99px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; full name of the first author\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;publication year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;article title\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;journal name or reference source\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;research-related information (e.g., study aims, study design, setting, sample size, grouping structure, and the evidence-based practice/innovation things under study)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 99px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplementation Focus (PEDALs framework)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP (Problem)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Study focusses on identifying the real-world problem in health or healthcare that needs addressing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE (Evidence-based practice)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Study focusses on the evidence-based or evidence-informed practice, intervention, or policy to be implemented, including its adaptation for local contexts and, when appropriate, the de-implementation of ineffective practices\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD (Determinants)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Study focusses on identifying and prioritizing the determinants (ie., barriers and facilitators) influencing EBP implementation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA (Action)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Study focusses on the development new or selecting and tailoring existing implementation strategies to address the identified determinants\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eL (Long-term use)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Study focusses on the efforts to ensure the the continued use and effectiveness of the implemented EBP over time, including the assessment of implementation outcomes which are usually related to EBP sustainment, and arrange and plan for sustaining EBP beyond initial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003es (Scale and scale-up)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Study focusses on the processes of scale-up, iterative improvement across multiple implementation cycles, and rigorous evaluation of implementation effectiveness using appropriate study designs.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 99px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGCM methodological characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConceptual and theoretical foundations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Sources of GCM methodology, and guiding theoretical frameworks or models)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGCM procedures and technical features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Participant characteristics, rationale for population selection, recruitment processes, and participant incentives or benefits, prompt development and formulation, number of prompts and rounds, idea generation procedures, numbers of statements and clusters, rating and scoring dimensions and scales, levels of participant agreement, mapping software, types and numbers of maps, and data visualization methods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResources and feasibility considerations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Mapping duration, costs, and required resources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReflexive assessments of method use\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Reported strengths, limitations, barriers, and facilitators related to the GCM process.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 99px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdditional information\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy outcomes and remarks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 395px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; \u0026nbsp;Main study outcomes, key findings, and relevant author remarks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3. Thematic domains and subthemes identified in the included studies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"106%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePEDALs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCite\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrimary Thematic\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSubthemes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth Systems, Policy, and Organizational Change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33(26.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplementation evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE, D, L\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[46,59,67,86,88,92,94,100,115]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth systems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE, D, A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[37,40,48,70,79,101,118]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy implementation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[68,98,114,131]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTranslational research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[56,62,89,110]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrimary care\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD, A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[12,22,126]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth services\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD, A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[73,80,124]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplementation training and collaboration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE, D\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[84,87,106]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaternal, Child, and Adolescent Health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20(16.0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdolescent health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE,D\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[16,27,47,50,52,61,95,105]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaternal health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE,D,A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[2,13,23,54,90,128]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChild health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD,A,L\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[9,25,36,113,121]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReproductive health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[17]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInfectious Diseases and Cancer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19(15.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCancer screening\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[30,32,44,99,102,112]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCancer treatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE,D\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[14,33,49,77,107]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHIV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE,D,A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[39,65,82,93]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHPV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE,D,A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[8,15,24,64]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMental Health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16(12.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMental health services\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE,D,A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[29,42,58,66,96,104,108,109,111]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubstance use\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[11,20,28,38,43,122,125]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChronic Disease Management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16(12.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCardiovascular disease/hypertension\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD,L\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[19,31,74,116,127,129]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRehabilitation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[53,69,72,103]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiabetes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[78,120]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD,A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[35,75]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChronic disease prevention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[123]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStroke\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[41]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVulnerable Populations and Health Equity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13(10.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow-income populations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD,A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[51,57,71,85]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRural and remote populations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE,D,A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[34,45,97,130]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocially marginalized populations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[55,60,91]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeople with disabilities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD,A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[117,119]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInjury Prevention and Sports Health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8(6.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports injuries\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[10,18,26]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports organization strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[21,76]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports injury prevention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[81,83]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 24px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eViolence prevention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[63]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4 Summary of Prompt Formulation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"613\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrompt Formulation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 319px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCite\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efactor-identification oriented\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41(32.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 319px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[14,17,19,20,22\u0026ndash;26,30,32,33,36,41,46,48,50,56,60,64,72,81,82,90,91,96,97,99\u0026ndash;104,108,112,115,117,124,127,129,130]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003egoal-action oriented\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29(23.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 319px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[4,8,18,27,29,35,37,39,52,54,57,59,62,63,68,70,74,77,78,85\u0026ndash;87,93,107,116,116,122,123,125]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eproblem-solution oriented\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6(4.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 319px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[10,13,45,55,58,84]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eexperience-reflection oriented\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6(4.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 319px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[44,53,67,69,76,83]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epriority-ranking oriented\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4(3.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 319px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[43,94,110,131]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edual-dimension oriented\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4(3.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 319px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[28,51,65,128]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econditional-hypothetical oriented\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(2.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 319px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[11,89,118]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: The table presents a single example of prompt formulation provided by each study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5 The number of the maps\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Order Of Map\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCite\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2, 5, 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24(19.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[8,20,25,33,59,60,62,66,70,72,73,77,78,82,83,85,87,88,91,95,107,123,125,130]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2, 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17(13.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[10,12,18,37,41,43,48,61,81,84,86,92,97,101,116,127,129]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14(11.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[9,11,13,26,28,34,40,50,63,76,94,99,115,128]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7(5.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[102\u0026ndash;104,108,109,112,117]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6(4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[4,19,22,24,39,68]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4(3.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[21,49,100,122]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1, 2, 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[29,35,64]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1, 2, 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[71,74,118]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4, 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3(2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[16,17,36]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2, 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2(1.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[93,110]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3, 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2(1.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[45,69]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1, 2, 5, 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[65]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1, 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[46]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1, 5, 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[23]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2, 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[14]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2, 3, 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[27]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2, 4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[32]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3, 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[44]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4, 5, 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[90]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: 1 for Point map, 2 for Cluster map, 3 for Point rating map, 4 for Cluster rating map, 5 for Pattern match graphs, and 6 for Go-zone plot.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Southern Medical University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Group concept mapping, Implementation science, Scoping review","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8572195/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8572195/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGroup Concept Mapping (GCM), a participatory mixed-methods approach, structures stakeholder knowledge for implementation. Despite its growing use, it remains unclear which implementation tasks GCM most commonly supports, how its application is distributed across implementation stages, and whether current reporting practices enable translation of GCM outputs into implementation action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjective:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo map GCM’s use in implementation science, focusing on (1) implementation stages and tasks supported by GCM, (2) GCM methodological features, and (3) GCM reporting practices and their links to decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Eligible studies were English/Chinese research that applied GCM within implementation science, with no date restriction. Searches were conducted on December 29, 2024, across 10 electronic and grey literature databases. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts using Covidence, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer; exclusion reasons were documented. The form captured study characteristics, implementation science steps, GCM methodological characteristics, and outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e125 studies (1995–2024) were included. Publication growth peak in 2024, with studies concentrated in North America (48.3%) and Europe (31.3%). Most studies were published in core implementation science journals, particularly \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science\u003c/em\u003e (n=7, 5.6%) and \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science Communications\u003c/em\u003e (n=6, 4.8%). 85.6% used GCM as the sole method. Seven primary thematic domains were identified, with “Implementation Science Methods, Conceptualization, and Capacity Building” as the largest (n=33, 26.4%), followed by “Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health” (n=20, 16.0%) and “Infectious Diseases and Cancer” (n=19, 15.2%). Regarding implementation science components, 75.2% studies applied GCM to the determinants (barriers and facilitators) of implementation stage, while 5 studies addressed two stages simultaneously. Methodologically, generated statements ranged from 15 to 406 (most \u0026lt;100), with 4–18 clusters identified, and for data visualization, cluster maps (72.0%) and go-zone plots (63.4%) were the most frequent outputs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGCM is a valuable participatory method for structuring stakeholder knowledge in implementation science, particularly for identifying implementation determinants. It remains underutilized for later-stage tasks (e.g., strategy selection, sustainment planning, scale-up). Future research should frame GCM as a decision-support tool (not a stand-alone analytic exercise), integrate complementary designs, and explicitly document its role in implementation planning and outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProtocol Registration\u003c/strong\u003e: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/ECFSG\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The application of group concept mapping in implementation science: a scoping review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-13 10:30:50","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8572195/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":1}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3b6b0dfc-2bac-4852-b79c-48a6ad56a32e","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-13T10:30:50+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-13 10:30:50","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8572195","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8572195","identity":"rs-8572195","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}