Measures (Outcomes)

Resources for Practical Measures for D&I Research​​    

The ‘Ultimate Use’ question for D&I measurement (a goal; not achievable in any one project but to guide priority setting): what interventions (programs or policies) and what components of these interventions, delivered by what implementation strategies, conducted under what conditions and in what settings, conducted by which agents, is effective in producing which outcomes, for which populations (and subgroups), how much does it cost, and how does it comes about?​

Chronological order

Glasgow, Huebschmann, & Brownson. (2018). Expanding the CONSORT Figure: Increasing Transparency in Reporting on External Validity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine​, 55(3), 422-430.

Burke, R., & Shojania, K. (2018). Rigorous evaluations of evolving interventions: Can we have our cake and eat it too?​ BMJ Quality & Safety, BMJ Quality & Safety, 9 February 2018.

Rabin B, Purcell P, and Glasgow RE (2013). Harmonizing Measures for Implementation Science using Crowd-Sourcing. Clinical Medicine and Research, September;11(3):158.

Rabin B, Purcell P, Naveed S, Moser R, Henton M, Proctor EK, Brownson RC, Glasgow RE (2012). Advancing the Application, Quality, and Harmonization of Implementation Science Measures. Implementation Science, Dec 11;7:119

Glasgow RE (2009). Critical Measure Issues in Translational Research. Research on Social Work Practice 19:560-568.


Glasgow RE, Kaplan R, Ockene J, Fisher EB, Emmons KM, Society of Behavioral Medicine Health Policy Committee (2012). Patient-Reported Measures of Psychosocial Issues And Health Behavior Should be Added to Electronic Health Records​. Health Affairs   31:3497-504. 

Fernald, D.H., Froshaug, D., Dickinson, M., Balasubramanian, B.A., Dodoo, M., Holtrop, J.S., Hung, D., Glasgow, R.E., et al. (2008). A field test of brief health behavior measures in primary care: Results from the COMBO study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(5S):S414-S422.

Fisher, L., Glasgow, R.E., Mullan, J., Skaff, M. (2008). Development of a Brief Diabetes Distress Screening Instrument. Annals of Family Medicine 6(3):246-252.

McCormack, L.A., Bann, C., Williams-Piehota, P.A., Burton, J., Kamerow, D., Square, C., Fisher, E., Glasgow, R.E.. (2008). Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Resources and Support for Illness Self-Management: A Model Using Diabetes. The Diabetes Educator, 34(4):707-718.

Schmittdiel, J., Mosen, D.M., Glasgow, R.E., Hibbard, J., Sobel, D., Remmers, C., Bellows, J. (2008) Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and Improve Processes and Outcomes for Chronic Conditions. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(1)77-80.

Glasgow, R. E., Toobert, D.J., and Barrera, M., Jr. (2005). The Chronic Illness Resources Survey: Cross-Validation and Sensitivity to Intervention. Health Education Research, 29(4):402-409.1.

Glasgow, R. E., Ory, M.G., Klesges, L.M., Cifuentes, M., Fernald, D.H., and Green, L.A. (2005). Practical and Relevant Self-Report Measures of Patient Health Behaviors for Primary Care Research. Annals of Family Medicine, 3:73-81.

Glasgow, R. E., Wagner, E., Schaefer, J., Mahoney, L., Reid, R.J., and Greene, S. (2005). Development and Validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Medical Care, 43(5):436-444.

Bonomi, A.E., Glasgow, R. E., Wagner, E.H., et al. (2002). Assessment of Chronic Illness Care: A Practical Tool for Quality Improvement. Health Services Research 37(3):791-820.

Glasgow, R. E., Gillette, C., Toobert, D.J. (2001) Psychosocial Barriers to Diabetes Self-Management and Quality of Life. Diabetes Spectrum, 14(1):

Glasgow, R. E., Strycker, L.A., Toobert, D.J., and Eakin, E.G. (2000). The Chronic Illness Resources Survey: A social-ecologic support for disease self-management. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2000;23:559-583.

Toobert, D. J., Glasgow, R. E., and Hampson, S. (2000). The Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure: Results from Seven Studies and a Revised Scale. Diabetes Care, 2000;23:943-950.

Glasgow RE and Riley T (2013). Pragmatic Measures: What They Are and Why We Need Them.​ American Journal of Preventive Medicine, August;45(2):237-43.

Weiner, B. J., Lewis, C. C., Stanick, C., Powell, B. J., Dorsey, C. N., Clary, A. S., . . . Halko, H. (2017). Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implementation Science. 12:108.

Sauro, J., Johnson, K., Meenan, C. (2017) “From Snake-Oil to Science: Measuring UX Maturity.” Proceedings of the Conference in Human Factors in Computing Systems. Denver, CO, USA.

ONLINE TOOL

Systematic Review of Implementation Measures Used in Health Policy Studies

https://www.health-policy-measures.org

A web-based compendium of measures of health policy implementation is intended to help policy researchers, evaluators, and implementation science researchers identify and select measures to assess the implementation of health policies in a variety of settings. On this site you can search for measures by several attributes and see and download measure overviews that include ratings of the measures’ pragmatic and psychometric properties.

The Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, in the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, with guidance from experts at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health, and Brigham Young University School of Social Work, conducted the systematic review leading to this development.​​