Request for YOUR Thoughts on “Enhancing the Reporting of Implementation Research”

Commentary: Implementation Science publishes around 150 manuscripts per year, and last month, one in particular jumped out at us. Authored by the journal’s editors, “Enhancing the reporting of implementation research” clarified the journal’s scope and submission criteria with the aim to reduce the gap between what gets submitted and what gets published. As the field of implementation science expands, pinpointing what exactly falls under its umbrella has become a challenge. To satisfy the journal criteria, Wilson et al. emphasized that studies must employ rigorous scientific methods to examine “implementation of evidence-based healthcare interventions”, (i.e. those that have already been proven effective), practices, and policies, or studies of de-implementation of practices that have proved unbeneficial or harmful. Implementation Science also invites papers that put forth new or proposed alternatives to existing methods, provided they are grounded in existing literature and expand on the theoretical base of implementation science.

In light of this, what do you think? Whether you are an implementation science champion or an interested onlooker hoping to dive into this field, we want to hear from you. How do you define implementation science? How might this definition differ from your institution’s definition or work in the field? We encourage you to email us at cis@consortiumforis.org with your response, and look out for some featured responses in future issues!

Read the abstract or the full article.