Advancing the Speed and Science of Implementation Using Mixed-Methods Process Mapping – Best Practice Recommendations

Mixed-methods process mapping is a visualisation tool that identifies the steps, resources and personnel required to deliver a clinical practice, and has been previously used in an ad hoc manner to develop effective implementation strategies and solutions. To realise the potential of mixed-methods process mapping as an implementation tool, we aimed to develop and formalize the methodological steps and provide guidance for contemporary best practice approaches to using this approach for optimising implementation practice and research. Synthesising theory, evidence and expertise, we have identified 10 best practice recommendations and provide the first systematic framework for integrating mixed-methods process mapping into three core phases of health systems implementation, specifically: (1) engaging interest holders (and maintaining engagement), (2) identifying when, where, why, and to whom change is needed (and potential consequences), and, (3) identifying barriers and enablers, and co-designing implementation strategies. For each phase, we provide: (a) a rationale for using mixed-methods process mapping, (b) best practice guidance for combining mixed-methods process mapping with implementation practice and research, and (c) case studies exemplifying best practice. This article provides intelligence on mixed-methods process mapping to improve the consistency and quality of its use among implementation researchers and practitioners. We present a rationale, guidance, and practical tools for conducting mixed-methods process mapping to enhance the quality of implementation research and practice which can be used and adapted internationally. In doing so, it builds capacity and provides an opportunity for researchers and healthcare professionals to better understand and embed evidence-based innovations into health systems, improving service and client outcomes. Further research is needed to establish potential uses of mixed-methods process mapping to support other core components of implementation practice (e.g., adaptation), and to formally test the impact of this approach independently versus as part of a combination of implementation strategies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251340908
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Health Policy Implementation Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
14.08
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Advancing the Speed and Science of Implementation Using Mixed-Methods Process Mapping – Best Practice Recommendations

Carolyn Mazariego, Rachel Baffsky, Sarah Wise, Christine T. Shiner et al.
5 citations
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Health Policy Implementation Science
14.08
article

Advancing the Speed and Science of Implementation Using Mixed-Methods Process Mapping – Best Practice Recommendations

Carolyn Mazariego, Rachel Baffsky, Sarah Wise, Christine T. Shiner, Luke Wolfenden, April Morrow, Deborah Debono, Guillaume Fontaine, Natalie Taylor, Jane Ellen Carland, Stephanie Best, Shuang Liang, Skye McKay, Justin Presseau
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Mixed-methods process mapping is a visualisation tool that identifies the steps, resources and personnel required to deliver a clinical practice, and has been previously used in an ad hoc manner to develop effective implementation strategies and solutions. To realise the potential of mixed-methods process mapping as an implementation tool, we aimed to develop and formalize the methodological steps and provide guidance for contemporary best practice approaches to using this approach for optimising implementation practice and research. Synthesising theory, evidence and expertise, we have identified 10 best practice recommendations and provide the first systematic framework for integrating mixed-methods process mapping into three core phases of health systems implementation, specifically: (1) engaging interest holders (and maintaining engagement), (2) identifying when, where, why, and to whom change is needed (and potential consequences), and, (3) identifying barriers and enablers, and co-designing implementation strategies. For each phase, we provide: (a) a rationale for using mixed-methods process mapping, (b) best practice guidance for combining mixed-methods process mapping with implementation practice and research, and (c) case studies exemplifying best practice. This article provides intelligence on mixed-methods process mapping to improve the consistency and quality of its use among implementation researchers and practitioners. We present a rationale, guidance, and practical tools for conducting mixed-methods process mapping to enhance the quality of implementation research and practice which can be used and adapted internationally. In doing so, it builds capacity and provides an opportunity for researchers and healthcare professionals to better understand and embed evidence-based innovations into health systems, improving service and client outcomes. Further research is needed to establish potential uses of mixed-methods process mapping to support other core components of implementation practice (e.g., adaptation), and to formally test the impact of this approach independently versus as part of a combination of implementation strategies.

International Journal of Qualitative MethodsVol. 24
University of Technology Sydney (AU), University of Ottawa (CA), The University of Melbourne (AU), Ottawa Hospital (CA), Jewish General Hospital (CA), UNSW Sydney (AU), St Vincent's Hospital Sydney (AU), St Vincent's Health (AU), St Vincent's Clinic (AU), James N. Kirby Foundation (AU), Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA), McGill University (CA), University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Health Policy Implementation Science
14.08
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.