Eight commonly cited determinant frameworks converge on five general types of implementation determinants¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Despite disparate terms, eight commonly cited determinant frameworks account for the same five general types of determinants: characteristics of the implementation object, of users/adopters, of end users, of context, and of the implementation strategy. → Nilsen P 2015

Evidence¶

Nilsen P 2015¶

Nilsen P. (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0

q2 · i? · review · r2

Narrative review synthesis comparing eight determinant frameworks in Table 2 (e.g. PARIHS, Greenhalgh et al.'s Conceptual Model, Grol et al., CFIR). The review reports they are "quite similar with regard to the general types of determinants they account for". No effect size is printed.

"The frameworks are superficially quite disparate, with a broad range of terms, concepts and constructs as well as different outcomes, yet they are quite similar with regard to the general types of determinants they account for."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• AI outcomes in higher education are shaped by leadership capacity, infrastructure readiness, and governance structures rather than functioning independently — related
• Digital infrastructure readiness determines the scalability and effectiveness of AI systems in higher education, with disparities between high-income and low-income regions — related