The struggle of translating science into action: Foundational concepts of implementation science
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Dissemination of evidence-based therapies remains poor in routine practice.
“Dissemination of evidence-based therapies remains poor in routine practice [90].”
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
- PMC
- PMC5901403
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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