A imagem mostra a capa de um livro intitulado “AVALIAÇÃO DE TECNOLOGIAS: ABORDAGENS E PESQUISAS”.
Downloads
Volume
Avaliação de tecnologias: abordagens e pesquisas
Páginas
78-96
Publicado
novembro 7, 2026
Copyright (c) 2026 Editora ABEn

Como Citar

BELOTTI, Lorrayne; ALMEIDA, Leticia Yamawaka de; OLIVEIRA, Ilana Eshriqui; GODOI, Lídia; OLIVEIRA, Cintia de Freitas; BONFIM, Daiana. USO DO MODELO LÓGICO NA ÁREA DE SAÚDE: CONTRIBUIÇÕES DA CIÊNCIA DA IMPLEMENTAÇÃO. Em: TEIXEIRA, Elizabeth; NASCIMENTO, Marcia Helena Machado; SALBEGO, Cléton; PRIMO, Candida Caniçali (eds.). Avaliação de tecnologias: abordagens e pesquisas. Brasília, Brasil: Editora ABEn,2026. p. 78–96. DOI: 10.51234/aben.26.e32_cap6. Disponível em: https://editoraaben.abennacional.org.br/editora/catalog/book/53/chapter/402. Acesso em: 15 nov. 2026.

USO DO MODELO LÓGICO NA ÁREA DE SAÚDE: CONTRIBUIÇÕES DA CIÊNCIA DA IMPLEMENTAÇÃO

Autores
Lorrayne Belotti; Leticia Yamawaka de Almeida; Ilana Eshriqui Oliveira; Lídia Godoi; Cintia de Freitas Oliveira; Daiana Bonfim
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51234/aben.26.e32_cap6
Sinopse

A produção de evidências sobre intervenções na área da saúde não garante que estas sejam incorporadas aos sistemas e serviços de saúde ou produzam, em condições reais, os resultados observados em estudos de eficácia ou efetividade. Assim, a Ciência da Implementação (CI), definida como o estudo científico dos métodos destinados a promover a incorporação sistemática de evidências nos serviços de saúde (1), tem como foco considerando intrinsicamente as necessidades das pessoas usuárias, o contexto e os sistemas de saúde nos quais essas práticas serão inseridas(2).

Referências

1. Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2006;1:1. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.

2. Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne AM. An introduction to implementation science for the nonspecialist. BMC Psychol. 2015;3:32. doi:10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9.

3. May CR, Johnson M, Finch T. Implementation, context and complexity. Implement Sci. 2016;11:141. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0506-3.

4. Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:189. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3.

5. Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. 2022;17:75. doi:10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0.

6. Pfadenhauer LM, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Booth A, Hofmann B, et al. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci. 2017;12:21. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0552-5.

7. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-139.

8. Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. The Implementation Research Logic Model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implement Sci. 2020;15:84. doi:10.1186/s13012-020-01041-8.

9. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.

10. Salvador-Carulla L, et al. A taxonomy of the process in implementation science: the Global Impact Analytics Framework (GIAF). Implement Sci Commun. 2026;7:26. doi:10.1186/s43058-025-00824-8.

11. Birken SA, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Haines ER, Alexis Kirk M, Leeman J, et al. Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12:2. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0534-z.

12. Rogers PJ. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation. 2008;14(1):29-48. doi:10.1177/1356389007084674.

13. Czosnek L, et al. Developing an implementation research logic model: using a multiple case study design to establish a worked exemplar. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:90. doi:10.1186/s43058-022-00337-8.

14. Merle JL, Sloss EA, Sanuade OA, Lengnick-Hall R, Meza R, Golden C, et al. Refining the implementation research logic model: a citation analysis, user survey, and scoping review protocol. Front Health Serv. 2024;4:1490764. doi:10.3389/frhs.2024.1490764.

15. Funnell SC, Rogers PJ. Purposeful program theory: effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.

16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Step 2: describe the program. In: CDC Program Evaluation Framework Action Guide. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2024.

17. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65-76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.

18. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.

19. Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Powell BJ, Lyon AR, Tuzzio L, Jones S, et al. From classification to causality: advancing understanding of mechanisms of change in implementation science. Front Public Health. 2018;6:136. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00136.

20. Reardon CM, et al. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) User Guide: a five-step guide for conducting implementation research using the framework. Implement Sci. 2025;20:39. doi:10.1186/s13012-025-01450-7.

21. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:39. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-39.

22. Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Wells KB, Jones L, et al. An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:1-22. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215.

23. Perez Jolles M, Lengnick-Hall R, Mittman BS. Core functions and forms of complex health interventions: a Patient-Centered Medical Home illustration. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(6):1032-1038. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4818-7.

24. Terrana A, Viglione C, Rhee K, Rabin B, Godino J, Aarons GA,et al. The core functions and forms paradigm throughout EPIS: designing and implementing an evidence-based practice with function fidelity. Front Health Serv. 2024;3:1281690. doi:10.3389/frhs.2023.1281690.

25. Costa Palacio D, Rebustini F, de Oliveira DB, Neto JP, Barbieri W, Sanchez TP, et al. Dental vulnerability scale in primary health care: evidence of content and structure internal validity. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21:421. doi:10.1186/s12903-021-01742-6.

26. Oliveira DB, et al. Validation of the internal structure of the Brazilian Dental Vulnerability Scale. Rev Saude Publica. 2024;57(Suppl 3):8s. doi:10.11606/s1518-8787.2023057005360.

27. de Oliveira DB, Rebustini F, Palacio DDC, Paresque MC, Oliveira IE, Barbieri W,et al. Standardization of Dental Vulnerability Scale scores (EVO-BR). BMC Oral Health. 2024;24:791. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04531-z.

28. Sociedade Beneficente Israelita Brasileira Albert Einstein. Roteiro para utilização da Escala de Vulnerabilidade Odontológica (EVO-BR). São Paulo: Ministério da Saúde; 2023. 8 p.

29. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O’Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12:77. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9.

30. Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(1):4-23. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7.

31. Kirchner JE, Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Smith JL, Proctor EK. Getting a clinical innovation into practice: an introduction to implementation strategies. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283:112467. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.042.

32. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1.