Cited by 490Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 60 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice

Open access
Moullin, Joanna C., Dickson, Kelsey S., Stadnick, Nicole A., Albers, Bianca, Nilsen, Per, Broder-Fingert, Sarabeth, Mukasa, Barbara, Aarons, Gregory A.·2020·Implementation Science Communications

Abstract

Background: Recent reviews of the use and application of implementation frameworks in implementation efforts highlight the limited use of frameworks, despite the value in doing so. As such, this article aims to provide recommendations to enhance the application of implementation frameworks, for implementation researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners. Discussion: Ideally, an implementation framework, or multiple frameworks should be used prior to and throughout an implementation effort. This includes both in implementation science research studies and in real-world implementation projects. To guide this application, outlined are ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks across the implementation process. The recommendations have been written in the rough chronological order of an implementation effort; however, we understand these may vary depending on the project or context: (1) select a suitable framework(s), (2) establish and maintain community stakeholder engagement and partnerships, (3) define issue and develop research or evaluation questions and hypotheses, (4) develop an implementation mechanistic process model or logic model, (5) select research and evaluation methods (6) determine implementation factors/determinants, (7) select and tailor, or develop, implementation strategy(s), (8) specify implementation outcomes and evaluate implementation, (9) use a framework(s) at micro level to conduct and tailor implementation, and (10) write the proposal and report. Ideally, a framework(s) would be applied to each of the recommendations. For this article, we begin by discussing each recommendation within the context of frameworks broadly, followed by specific examples using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Summary: The use of conceptual and theoretical frameworks provides a foundation from which generalizable implementation knowledge can be advanced. On the contrary, superficial use of frameworks hinders being able to use, learn from, and work sequentially to progress the field. Following the provided ten recommendations, we hope to assist researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners to improve the use of implementation science frameworks.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This article provides ten recommendations for selecting and applying implementation frameworks throughout implementation research and practice, illustrated with examples using the EPIS framework. It argues that comprehensive framework use supports generalizable implementation knowledge, while superficial use hinders learning and progress in the field.

Key findings

  • The paper outlines ten recommendations in rough chronological order: (1) select a suitable framework(s), (2) establish and maintain community stakeholder engagement and partnerships, (3) define issue and develop research or evaluation questions and hypotheses, (4) develop an implementation mechanistic process model or logic model, (5) select research and evaluation methods, (6) determine implementation factors/determinants, (7) select and tailor, or develop, implementation strategy(s), (8) specify implementation outcomes and evaluate implementation, (9) use a framework(s) at micro level to conduct and tailor implementation, and (10) write the proposal and report.
  • Framework selection should consider four criteria: the purpose of the framework, the level(s) included, the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis or operationalization of implementation concepts, and the framework’s orientation (setting and type of intervention).
  • The article recommends that frameworks be used prior to and throughout an implementation effort; it states that suboptimal use can result in wasted resources, erroneous conclusions, specification errors in implementation methods and data analyses, and attenuated reviews of funding applications.
  • An international four-member stakeholder panel—including at least one stakeholder from each target audience (researchers, evidence-based practice, intermediaries, and practitioners)—reviewed the recommendations and tested/trialed two tools, which were refined according to their suggestions.

Methods

  • Design: A discussion/recommendations article, not an empirical study; recommendations were developed from a recent systematic review and the collective experience of the co-authors applying the EPIS framework in national and international implementation efforts.
  • Data or sample: No primary dataset; an international four-member stakeholder panel reviewed the recommendations and tested/trialed the tools. EPIS application examples are drawn from cited studies, including JJ-TRIALS, LOCI, ATTAIN, and a school nursing trial to reduce LGBTQ adolescent suicide.
  • Main analysis: Narrative synthesis with applied examples; the article provides two tools—the Implementation Framework Application Worksheet and the Implementation Framework Utilization Checklist (Additional files 1 and 2).

Limitations

  • The paper states that the sequence of recommendations is not prescriptive; recommendations one to three in particular may vary or occur concurrently, and applying all recommendations may be unrealistic under real-world resource constraints, requiring strategic selection of frameworks.
  • It states that depending on the stage in the implementation process, it may not be necessary to apply all recommendations; those early in the exploration phase may not be able to produce process or logic models or articulate mechanisms yet.
  • Not stated in the paper: there is no formal limitations section. Evident from the text: the recommendations and tools were not empirically tested beyond stakeholder review/trial, and the tools themselves are in additional files not included in the provided text.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s43058-020-00023-7

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Fig. 1 TEAMS intervention, mechanisms, and outcomes [47]
Fig. 1 TEAMS intervention, mechanisms, and outcomes [47]CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

41 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 2 Partly supported · 1 Supported · 1 Own method · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 56 references — free account

Show all 17 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 37
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 13
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
41 of 41
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Following the ten recommendations will improve the use of implementation science frameworks by researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners.

    “Following the provided ten recommendations, we hope to assist researchers, intermediaries, and practitioners to improve the use of implementation science frameworks.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Implementation frameworks are necessary for selecting, tailoring, or developing implementation strategies.

    “Implementation frameworks are necessary for selecting, tailoring, or developing implementation strategies.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Implementation is a dynamic, context-specific process.

    “Implementation is a dynamic, context-specific process.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Documenting the use of implementation frameworks is vital for an implementation project to be replicable and analyzable.

    “As part of this documentation, detailing the use of an implementation framework(s) is vital for the implementation project to be replicable and analyzable.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Superficial use of implementation frameworks hinders researchers' and practitioners' learning and efforts to sequentially progress the field.

    “Superficial use of frameworks hinders researchers’ and practitioners’ learning and efforts to sequentially progress the field.”
5 of 5

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. World Health Organization. Changing mindsets: strategy on health policy and systems research. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2012.
  2. Lewis C, Boyd M, Beidas R, Lyon A, Chambers D, Aarons G, Mittman B: A research agenda for mechanistic dissemination and implementation research. In Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation; Bethesda, MD. 2015.
  3. Suhrheinrich J, et al. Exploring inner-context factors associated with implementation outcomes in a randomized trial of classroom pivotal response teaching. Under Review.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 490

Metadata

Authors
Moullin, J. C., Dickson, K. S., Stadnick, N. A., Albers, B., Nilsen, P., Broder-Fingert, S., Mukasa, B., & Aarons, G. A.
Affiliations
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Mildmay Uganda (UG)
Corresponding author
Moullin, Joanna C.
Venue
Implementation Science Communications
Published
2020-04-30
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
42-42
ISSN
2662-2211 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3025092189
Cited by
488
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 67 · 2025: 115 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 101 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 7
FWCI
55.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R03MH117493-01, K23MH115100, K23MH110602, K23MH109673)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA038466)
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 framework, implementation science, EPIS framework, implementation process, stakeholder engagement, logic model, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, implementation factors

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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