This scoping review focuses on the CFIR-ERIC matching tool, developed to aid in implementing evidence-based best practice guidelines (BPGs) in healthcare. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, studies using the tool from April 29, 2019, to February 8, 2025, were systematically searched across eight databases.
Key findings reveal 47 included studies (2020–2025) with a rising annual publication trend, primarily from the US, the Netherlands, and China. Most studies were qualitative or mixed-methods, applied primarily in clinical intervention improvement and primary healthcare. While 95.7% of studies completed initial steps of identifying barriers/facilitators and generating strategies, only 8.5% did all steps (optimization, validation, evaluation), revealing a “front-heavy and back-light” process. The tool’s strengths include standardized strategy-matching and targeted recommendations, yet challenges like over-reliance on expert consensus and unclear effectiveness validation exist.
In conclusion, this review, the first of its kind for the CFIR-ERIC tool, highlights its wide application but also points to gaps in full-process utilization. It suggests optimizing the tool to reduce subjectivity and enhance contextual adaptability, and calls for future research to emphasize full-process application, especially strategy validation and evaluation, to bolster the tool’s effectiveness and advance implementation science in global healthcare.
Introduction: In 2019, Waltz et al. developed the CFIR-ERIC matching tool, integrating practical strategies with theoretical frameworks. This tool can quickly and specifically generate implementation strategies and has been widely used in the medical field. This scoping review summarizes the tool's current application status, operational processes, advantages and limitations, aiming to provide crucial evidence for tool optimization and implementation strategy improvement.
Methods: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology, we systematically searched eight electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (CBM) for studies utilizing the CFIR-ERIC matching tool. Information regarding application purposes, process, advantages, and disadvantages was extracted for descriptive analysis. This study reports according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.
Results: A total of 449 articles were retrieved, and 47 were finally included. The included studies were published between 2020 and 2025, with the United States (29.8%), Netherlands (19.1%), Australia (17.0%), and China (14.9%) being the most prolific countries. The tool has been applied in a wide range of areas, primarily focusing on clinical interventions (46.8%). The research methods primarily employed were qualitative studies (46.8%). The primary application purpose was to assist in the construction of implementation strategies (95.7%). However, the process of tool application is not yet perfected, with only a few studies having adjusted, validated, and evaluated the generated strategies.
Conclusion: Research shows that the CFIR-ERIC matching tool has broad application potential and significant advantages, but it also faces many challenges. Future research should focus on its limitations and explore more optimizations based on fully leveraging the tool's advantages. This could include reducing subjective influences through iterative expert consensus and encouraging more researchers to propose adjustment suggestions based on practical application needs. These efforts can contribute to the advancement of implementation science research and enhance the efficiency and quality of healthcare implementation globally.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 20250815★会议摘要#26-北京中医药大学-壁报-提交版.pdf (465.02 KB) | 465.02 KB |
