Cited by 319Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

The struggle of translating science into action: Foundational concepts of implementation science

Open access
Rapport, Frances, Clay‐Williams, Robyn, Churruca, Kate, Shih, Patti, Hogden, Anne, Braithwaite, Jeffrey·2018·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

Rationale, aims, and objectives: “Implementation science,” the scientific study of methods translating research findings into practical, useful outcomes, is contested and complex, with unpredictable use of results from routine clinical practice and different levels of continuing assessment of implementable interventions. The authors aim to reveal how implementation science is presented and understood in health services research contexts and clarify the foundational concepts: diffusion, dissemination, implementation, adoption, and sustainability, to progress knowledge in the field. Method: Implementation science models, theories, and frameworks are critiqued, and their value for laying the groundwork from which to implement a study's findings is emphasised. The paper highlights the challenges of turning research findings into practical outcomes that can be successfully implemented and the need for support from change agents, to ensure improvements to health care provision, health systems, and policy. The paper examines how researchers create implementation plans and what needs to be considered for study outputs to lead to sustainable interventions. This aspect needs clear planning, underpinned by appropriate theoretical paradigms that rigorously respond to a study's aims and objectives. Conclusion: Researchers might benefit from a return to first principles in implementation science, whereby applications that result from research endeavours are both effective and readily disseminated and where interventions can be supported by appropriate health care personnel. These should be people specifically identified to promote change in service organisation, delivery, and policy that can be systematically evaluated over time, to ensure high‐quality, long‐term improvements to patients' health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jep.12741

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 319

Authors
Rapport, F., Clay‐Williams, R., Churruca, K., Shih, P., Hogden, A., & Braithwaite, J.
Affiliations
Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Rapport, Frances
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-03-31
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
117-126
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
OpenAlex
W2600417494
Cited by
319
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5
FWCI
38.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTAS Research Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1054146)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
implementation science, research translation, diffusion, dissemination, implementation, adoption, sustainability, implementation planning, change agents, health services research, health service improvement, health policy
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Health Plan Implementation, Health Services Research, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Information Dissemination, Evidence-Based Practice, Translational Research, Biomedical, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review