CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 225Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Implementation of Implementation Science Knowledge: The Research‐Practice Gap Paradox

Open access
Westerlund, Anna, Nilsen, Per, Sundberg, Linda·2019·Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing
DOI 10.1111/wvn.12403PMC PMC6899530
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A person who wants to find a solution to a public health problem has a different task than someone who wants to create or test a theory. (Eldredge, Markham, Ruiter, Kok, & Parcel, 2016, p. 8) The challenges in improving health care are considerable, as are the efforts made to develop and deliver best practice (Grol, Wensing, Eccles, & Davis, 2013). Different interventions with evidence of effectiveness are continuously made available for potential improvement of health care. However, the difficulties in implementing and using such evidence are well known (Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004). The knowledge-practice gap in health care refers to the gap between scientific knowledge and its application in routine healthcare practice. Implementation science has developed in the 2000s in response to this gap, with the ambition to generate knowledge to promote a better uptake of evidence for improvements in the quality and safety of health care. The body of implementation knowledge comprises a rapidly growing amount of empirical studies as well as countless theories, frameworks, and models, contributing to an understanding of factors associated with successful implementation of evidence-based interventions within a variety of settings (Tabak, Khoong, Chambers, & Brownson, 2012). The multitude of empirical implementation studies, as well as theories, models, and frameworks developed in implementation science, reflect a growing evidence-based concerning implementation (Brownson, Colditz, & Proctor, 2018). However, despite the rapid progress of implementation science, the knowledge-practice gap in health care is still substantial, as shown in studies that describe difficulties in achieving desirable change in healthcare practice. Low rates of adoption and limited use of evidence-based interventions are persistent problems. Thus, the challenges of reducing the knowledge-practice gap still remain after more than two decades of research. The aim of this editorial is to address the knowledge-practice gap by means of increasing awareness of a parallel knowledge-practice gap (i.e., the somewhat paradoxical gap between scientific knowledge concerning implementation and actual real-life implementation and use of this knowledge in healthcare practice). This editorial is based on findings and conclusions presented in a doctoral thesis by the first author, which investigated the resemblance between available scientific knowledge on implementation and implementation strategies used in healthcare practice in three large improvement efforts in Sweden (Westerlund, 2018). An overall conclusion of the thesis was that there exists a parallel knowledge-practice gap between scientific knowledge on implementation and the use of this knowledge in implementation efforts in healthcare practice (Westerlund, 2018; Westerlund et al., 2017). The findings showed that implementation knowledge was not transferred to healthcare practice (and practitioners) to a sufficient extent, thus restricting the systematic use of implementation knowledge in practice. Implementation science has a twofold aim: to produce knowledge sufficiently generalizable to contribute to scientific knowledge accumulation and to produce knowledge applicable for improved practice (Fixsen, Blase, & Van Dyke, 2019). The question of use, applicability, and impact of implementation science has been highlighted previously, and the need to make implementation science knowledge more relevant and widely disseminated has been called for in the literature (Armson, Roder, Elmslie, Khan, & Straus, 2018; McIsaac et al., 2018). Implementation knowledge is not taught in healthcare practitioners' basic training and only seldom in continuing professional education. Although the literature on evidence-based implementation is expanding and courses are increasingly being made available, these do not focus on practical issues or guidance on how to actually use implementation science knowledge in implementation endeavors (Nilsen, Neher, Ellström, & Gardner, 2017). Ovretveit, Mittman, Rubenstein, and Ganz (2017) have noted that healthcare practitioners are not expected to be knowledgeable about implementation science. Although implementation science is widely considered an applied science, the extent to which knowledge produced in this field is actually used by practitioners is not known. There are few empirical studies concerning if or how scientific knowledge on implementation is being used in healthcare practice (Armson et al., 2018). As implementation researchers, we need to ask ourselves if our research findings and evidence on implementation have reached the world of practice to a sufficient degree. There are many analytical tools aimed at supporting researchers' use of implementation science in their research endeavors (Simpson et al., 2013). When approaching the implementation knowledge field, phrases such as the following are frequently encountered:"Theories and framewo

Overview

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/wvn.12403

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Fixsen D. L., 2019, Implementation practice & science
  2. King's Improvement Science, 2018, Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and guide

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Westerlund, A., Nilsen, P., & Sundberg, L.
Affiliations
  • Umeå University (SE)
  • Department of Medical and Health Sciences Division of Community Medicine Linköping University Linköping Sweden
Corresponding author
Westerlund, Anna
ORCID
Venue
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-10
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
332-334
ISSN
  • 1545-102X (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-6787
DOI
10.1111/wvn.12403
PMC
PMC6899530
OpenAlex
W2979483631
Cited by
225
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 8
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DiVA at Umeå University (Umeå University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
knowledge-practice gap, implementation science, evidence-based interventions, implementation strategies, health care practices
MeSH terms
Professional Practice Gaps, Implementation Science, Humans, Evidence-Based Practice

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