The application of group concept mapping in implementation science: a scoping review

Background: Group Concept Mapping (GCM), a participatory mixed-methods approach, structures stakeholder knowledge for implementation. Despite its growing use, it remains unclear which implementation tasks GCM most commonly supports, how its application is distributed across implementation stages, and whether current reporting practices enable translation of GCM outputs into implementation action. Objective: To map GCM’s use in implementation science, focusing on (1) implementation stages and tasks supported by GCM, (2) GCM methodological features, and (3) GCM reporting practices and their links to decision-making. Methods: This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Eligible studies were English/Chinese research that applied GCM within implementation science, with no date restriction. Searches were conducted on December 29, 2024, across 10 electronic and grey literature databases. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts using Covidence, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer; exclusion reasons were documented. The form captured study characteristics, implementation science steps, GCM methodological characteristics, and outcomes. Results: 125 studies (1995–2024) were included. Publication growth peak in 2024, with studies concentrated in North America (48.3%) and Europe (31.3%). Most studies were published in core implementation science journals, particularly Implementation Science (n=7, 5.6%) and Implementation Science Communications (n=6, 4.8%). 85.6% used GCM as the sole method. Seven primary thematic domains were identified, with “Implementation Science Methods, Conceptualization, and Capacity Building” as the largest (n=33, 26.4%), followed by “Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health” (n=20, 16.0%) and “Infectious Diseases and Cancer” (n=19, 15.2%). Regarding implementation science components, 75.2% studies applied GCM to the determinants (barriers and facilitators) of implementation stage, while 5 studies addressed two stages simultaneously. Methodologically, generated statements ranged from 15 to 406 (most <100), with 4–18 clusters identified, and for data visualization, cluster maps (72.0%) and go-zone plots (63.4%) were the most frequent outputs. Conclusions: GCM is a valuable participatory method for structuring stakeholder knowledge in implementation science, particularly for identifying implementation determinants. It remains underutilized for later-stage tasks (e.g., strategy selection, sustainment planning, scale-up). Future research should frame GCM as a decision-support tool (not a stand-alone analytic exercise), integrate complementary designs, and explicitly document its role in implementation planning and outcomes. Protocol Registration : DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/ECFSG