Cited by 106Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Implementation science: Relevance in the real world without sacrificing rigor

Open access
Geng, Elvin H., Peiris, David, Kruk, Margaret E.·2017·PLOS Medicine

Abstract

The need for implementation science in health is now broadly recognized, and a working understanding of the qualities that make an implementation study "good" is needed more than ever before.As defined by Mittman and Eccles, implementation research "is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidencebased practices into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services.It includes the study of influences on healthcare professional and organizational behavior" [1].The scope of implementation science is broad, ranging from observational studies seeking to characterize and understand evidence-practice gaps, to proof-ofconcept studies of efficacy, to large-scale implementation and effectiveness trials of complex interventions.Certainly, if findings in this field are not internally valid (i.e., wrong within the source population), they won't be of use to anyone.But even if findings are internally valid, to be of value, they must be applicable and useful for implementers (e.g., governments, organizations, health care workers, and communities) in diverse real-world contexts.What kinds of findings in implementation science are most useful?Must a trade-off exist between rigor and relevance?If so, what is the right balance between rigor and applicability in a variety of contexts?The tension between rigor and relevance across contexts is at the center of two conversations in implementation research.One conversation is among investigators immersed in the traditional scientific principles of rigorous human subject research (e.g., sampling, measurement, and confounding) and who must sometimes be persuaded of the importance of usability, applicability, and, therefore, relevance across varied real-world practice contexts.The second conversation is among implementers and evaluators embedded in real-world programs, settings, and populations.Some from this group must be persuaded that rigorous evaluation is needed and that scientific fundamentals, with accompanying effort and planning, are requisite when implementation research is the goal.Fig 1, adapted from Andersen's heuristic [2] of the Four Ps, summarizes these two conversations.The first conversation-moving researchers who hail from traditional rigorous clinical investigation toward relevance-is in high gear [3] but faces formidable challenges.Resistance may stem in part from the fact that rules for rigor are well established (and summarized in systems such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) [4], while the perspectives for "relevance" (such as Glasgow's Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance [RE-AIM] framework) [5] are more recent, often require some conjecture, and may seem, to some, flimsy and unscientific.In addition, traditional approaches to rigor in clinical research are sometimes at direct odds with findings

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002288

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Geng, E. H., Peiris, D., & Kruk, M. E.
Affiliations
  • San Francisco General Hospital (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Geng, Elvin H.
Venue
PLOS Medicine
Published
2017-04-25
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
e1002288
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2610057828
Cited by
106
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4
FWCI
17.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH062246)
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 research, applicability, knowledge-practice gap, RE-AIM framework, internal validity, complex interventions, evidence-based practice uptake, health services quality
MeSH terms
Humans, Publishing, Research Personnel, Science, Editorial Policies, Translational Research, Biomedical

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