Implementation science communications最新文献

{"title":"Associations between organizational readiness and implementation fidelity in national implementation of WHO's labour care guide in Sweden: a prospective observational study.","authors":"Johanna Sjöberg, Anna Ramö Isgren, Thomas Abrahamsson, Marie Blomberg, Kristin Thomas","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01073-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01073-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>During 2024 and 2025, an adapted version of the World Health Organization's Labour Care Guide was implemented in approximately half of Sweden's labor wards within the PICRINO trial. Organizational readiness is widely regarded as a key determinant of successful implementation, however, empirical evidence linking organizational readiness to implementation outcomes remain limited. This study aimed to examine the association between organizational readiness for implementing the Labour Care Guide in Sweden and implementation fidelity, to explore variations in readiness and fidelity across organizational and individual factors and to assess changes in fidelity over time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included the implementation of the Labour Care Guide at ten labor wards in Sweden. Organizational readiness was measured among health care staff (n = 282) using the E-Ready 2.0 questionnaire before implementation was launched. Fidelity was assessed by analyzing degree of documentation within the Labour Care Guide tool at 3, 6, and 9 months (n = 750). A coding protocol including all seven sections of the tool, in which two sections were considered core components, was used to systematically analyze fidelity. Fidelity was then compared between wards with the aggregated highest, intermediate, and lowest levels of readiness at ward level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three wards reporting the aggregated highest levels of organizational readiness also demonstrated the highest implementation fidelity, while the three wards with the lowest reported aggregated readiness showed the lowest fidelity. In addition, staff at smaller labor wards reported greater readiness than staff at larger wards, and readiness was higher in non-university hospitals compared with university hospitals. Physicians reported higher readiness than midwives. Overall fidelity to the Labour Care Guide declined over time, however, this trend was not observed among core components.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides empirical support for an association between organizational readiness and implementation fidelity when introducing the Labour Care Guide in Sweden. Fidelity to core components remained stable, suggesting that essential elements were more resilient to implementation challenges. Findings highlight the importance of assessing and strengthening organizational readiness prior to implementation and of providing sustained support over time to maintain fidelity, particularly for non-core components.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov NCT05560802, 2022-09-17.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13501707/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148814829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Implementation barriers, facilitators, and fidelity of a mobile money-based savings tool for pregnant women in the Analamanga region of Madagascar: an ex-post process evaluation.","authors":"Lisa Bogler, Sebastian Vollmer, Zavaniarivo Rampanjato, Harizaka Emmanuel Andriamasy, Bítia Vieira, Louis Noël Schäfer, Elsa Rajemison, Onja Gabrielle Ravololohanitra, Andriamampianina Ralisimalala, Till Bärnighausen, Samuel Knauss, Julius Valentin Emmrich","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01055-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01055-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mobile payment services could improve access to obstetric care by easing saving, raising revenue, and pooling resources. Between 2019 and 2022, a mobile money-based savings tool for obstetric care was implemented in the Analamanga region of Madagascar following a randomized controlled trial design. We conducted an ex-post process evaluation of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed implementation fidelity and reach of the trial using five indicators from a population-based survey of 6,234 women who were pregnant during the intervention period and lived in catchment areas of 63 public primary-care health facilities (Centres de Santé de Base, CSBs) included in the trial: whether a woman (a) had heard of the tool, (b) could explain what it was, (c) had registered with it, (d) had used it to save, (e) had used it to pay for costs of childbirth. Combining the population-based survey with a healthcare provider survey and in-depth interviews with women, healthcare workers, and implementation staff, we examined factors associated with implementation quality, and barriers and facilitators to take-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sensitization led to statistically significantly higher take-up by women living in catchment areas of intervention CSBs compared to control CSBs: 39% vs 13% of surveyed women had heard of the tool, 33% vs 9% knew what it was, 15% vs 4% had registered, 15% vs 3% had saved with it and 10% vs 2% had paid with it. However, awareness and registration varied across intervention CSBs (4%-78%, 0%-54%). Key barriers to take-up included technical difficulties faced by providers, a disruption of informal benefits for providers, and mobile phone access. Learning about the tool from midwives was a facilitator.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the complexity of introducing a mobile money-based savings tool for obstetric care and the importance of evaluating implementation fidelity to understand trial impact. Strengthening community mobilization, providing more personalized support, and improving intervention compatibility with routine workflows could improve intervention delivery. User-centred design and phased roll-out allowing for continuous improvement cycles may help optimize effective implementation at scale.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The 4MOTHERS trial was registered on March 12, 2021, in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), identifier: DRKS00014928.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13474895/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148763139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Disproportionate pace of evidence-based care implementation in pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis: consequences and opportunities.","authors":"Claudia Gambrah-Lyles, Jordan J Cole, Alex T Ramsey","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01069-9","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01069-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) is a chronic autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that requires lifelong care. Long-term outcomes in POMS depend on both early therapeutic intervention and sustained continuity of specialty care into adulthood. However, there is a discrepancy between the speed and consistency at which pharmaceutical disease-modifying therapies and best practices for transition-to-adult care are incorporated into clinical practice. While pharmaceutical disease-modifying therapies have been rapidly incorporated into routine practice, uptake of best practices for transition-to-adult care has been inconsistent and slow, despite evidence-based guidelines and models.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>There is an urgent need for the implementation of transition-to-adult care interventions to \"catch up\" to that of disease-modifying therapies for POMS. Closing this gap is important because without a system of continuous care, patients lose access to disease-modifying therapies, negating the benefits of early and rapid uptake and jeopardizing long-term neurologic stability and outcomes as youth with multiple sclerosis (MS) grow into adulthood. This paper applies the Framework to Assess Speed of Translation (FAST) to examine this contrast in implementation pace and understand why pharmaceutical disease-modifying therapies have diffused rapidly, whereas innovations to support transitioning to adult care have not. We examine how innovation, adopter and contextual factors affect the diffusion and uptake of innovations in POMS, illustrating how interventions with observable relative advantage, strong champions, and compatibility with existing medical paradigms are propelled through the system, whereas interventions that are perceived as more complex, diffuse in ownership, and less visibly linked to outcomes are hindered. We argue that future efforts to improve transition-to-adult care in POMS must systematically identify and address determinants of pace that have slowed progress to date. Guided by the Designing for Accelerated Translation (DART) framework, we propose strategies for developing and mapping transition-to-adult care interventions that emphasize rapid translation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our objective is to facilitate the acceleration of translation of evidence-based transition-to-adult care practices in POMS so that continuity of care keeps pace with therapeutic innovation, maximizing long-term outcomes for this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13445904/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148686928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reframing simulation as an implementation strategy: a call for conceptual integration across two scientific communities.","authors":"Elizabeth Sanseau, Anne Adema, Marc Auerbach, Bethany M Kwan","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01048-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s43058-026-01048-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Simulation is an established evidence-based tool in healthcare. It is widely used for medical education (simulation-based medical education [SBME]), quality improvement, capacity building, audit and feedback, and probing healthcare systems for latent safety threats. Implementation science (IS) currently subsumes these functions under broad taxonomy categories such as \"conduct ongoing training\" or \"cyclical tests of change.\" This framing fails to capture simulation's distinct mechanisms and its unique potential to close the evidence-to-practice gap. We argue that the time has come for implementation scientists and the healthcare simulation community to come together around a shared question: does simulation, as it is already practiced in healthcare, meet the criteria for a discrete, named implementation strategy within taxonomies such as the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)?</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Drawing on the ERIC definition of an implementation strategy as \"methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of a clinical program or practice,\" we argue that simulation in healthcare already functions in this role across at least three distinct domains: developing individual and team competencies (SBME); probing healthcare systems for latent hazards and driving quality improvement; and operationalizing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and clinical decision supports (CDS) under realistic conditions. We specify simulation using established IS frameworks-including the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), the EPIS framework (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment), and the PRISM (Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model)-and propose a research agenda at the intersection of these two fields. High-reliability industries including aviation, astronautics, and nuclear power provide useful analogies, but the healthcare simulation literature has developed a robust and distinct evidence base in its own right, exemplified by translational simulation paradigms.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Simulation is not simply a training technique. It is a multi-mechanism, multi-level strategy with proven applications in healthcare education, QI, and systems change. Formally recognizing simulation within IS strategy taxonomies would sharpen conceptual clarity, enable more precise evaluation, and open a productive dialogue between two scientific communities whose work is more convergent than current frameworks suggest.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13419320/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148610734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a complex nursing intervention: a human-in-the-loop LLM-Assisted longitudinal and Cross-Case analysis across twelve cardiac surgery centres.","authors":"Yvonne J Jordens, Lilian Lechner, Myrna Pelgrum-Keurhorst, Roelof G A Ettema","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01043-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01043-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implementation of complex nursing interventions remains challenging, with success varying substantially across healthcare settings. Most implementation research assesses barriers and facilitators at single timepoints, limiting understanding of how these determinants evolve. Therefore, we aimed to understand how barriers and facilitators evolve over time during different implementation phases across three categories of implementation outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the \"Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment\" (EPIS) framework, this longitudinal qualitative study examined barriers and facilitators during implementation of the PREDOCS nursing intervention across twelve Dutch cardiothoracic centers from 2016 to 2019. We conducted 252 structured interviews across eight measurement waves with diverse healthcare professionals. Data were systematically coded for barriers and facilitators using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model through a hybrid approach combining Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted analysis with rigorous human verification. Hospitals were categorized into three implementation outcome groups: Implementation (n = 4), Delayed-Implementation (n = 5), and No-Implementation (n = 3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Barriers and facilitators evolved systematically across EPIS phases. Motivation remained universally high across all outcome groups throughout all phases. Fundamental knowledge gaps about intervention components during the Exploration phase were present in all three No-Implementation hospitals and absent in the Implementation group. Opportunity-domain factors, specifically the presence or absence of organizational infrastructure, resources, and management support, differed systematically between outcome groups across phases. As implementation progressed, the Implementation group reported a shift in the Capability domain from training barriers to available training and competent staff, a pattern absent in the Delayed and No-Implementation groups. Successful hospitals reported compensatory opportunity facilitators alongside persistent barriers, whereas hospitals that discontinued implementation reported sustained belief in intervention value in the absence of enabling organizational conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementation success depends less on motivation-building than on developing organizational infrastructure to translate intention into practice. Implementation determinants are not static: early knowledge gaps and absence of organizational facilitators functioned as early signals of later failure, and support strategies should therefore be phase-specific and longitudinally monitored rather than assessed at a single point in time.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148537547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A co-creation approach to selecting and adapting adolescent tobacco and air-pollution interventions and strategies for implementation in diverse countries: insights from FRESHAIR4Life.","authors":"Purva Abhyankar, Alexander Lepe, Jurjen van der Schans, Floor A van den Brand, Faraz Siddiqui, Saima Saeed, Javeria Akhter, Amina Khan, Mian Ali Kamran Baba, Ioanna Tsiligianni, Izolde Bouloukaki, Antonios Christodoulakis, Winceslaus Katagira, Bruce Kirenga, Cristina Isar, Adriana Antohe, Anca Lupu, Andrea Neculau, Talant Sooronbaev, Gulzada Mirzalieva, Aijan Taalaibekova, Rianne van der Kleij, D K Arvind, Siân Williams, Luís Carvalho, Hilary Pinnock","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01044-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01044-4","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Evidence-based interventions to reduce adolescents' exposure to tobacco and air pollution are rarely implemented in low- and middle-income countries, often because they lack contextual fit. The 'FRESHAIR4Life' project aimed to optimise implementation of contextually adapted, evidence-based interventions in Greece, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Romania, and Uganda. Selecting appropriate interventions required deliberate, inclusive, and context-sensitive decision-making. This paper outlines the co-creation approach for selecting and adapting interventions, developing implementation strategies and addressing the challenges that arose.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Each country followed a four-step process. First, findings from local situational analyses were consolidated to identify barriers and facilitators across individual, community, and system levels and to map targets for change using the Theoretical Domains Framework. This was followed by a workshop with country-teams to identify key risk factors, target behaviours, relevant populations and settings, and to shortlist potential interventions from the FRESHAIR4Life palette alongside implementation strategies using option grids and ranking. A subsequent stakeholder workshop applied a Socio Technical Allocation of Resources informed approach to elicit perspectives on the interventions' value using qualitative (Conversation Café style discussions) and quantitative methods (ratings of need, importance, likely reach, feasibility, and local adaptations required, fixed budget allocation exercises or ranking of options). Finally, selection meetings with country teams finalised intervention choices and implementation strategies, informed by stakeholder input.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Countries chose to target the risk factors that were considered most prevalent and the biggest threat to adolescent health in their settings. Of the four countries addressing tobacco use, Pakistan, Greece, and Romania selected 'implementation intentions (If-Then approach)' for prevention, while Kyrgyzstan selected 'very brief advice plus behavioural counselling (VBA+)' for cessation. All three countries addressing air pollution, Pakistan, Uganda and Kyrgyzstan selected social media campaigns. Key challenges included: (1) establishing a sound basis for selection decisions, which was overcome by adopting a systematic, transparent and inclusive decision process (2) ethical and practical considerations for addressing tobacco/nicotine use within school-based prevention, tackled by adapting intervention to include offer of cessation support (3) limited evidence-based interventions targeting ambient air pollution, addressed by flexibly moving beyond the palette (4) the evolving nature of implementation strategies and (5) embedding interventions into routine practice, both addressed through flexibility and adaptation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion: &lt;/strong&gt;This study shows that, across diverse country c","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148537523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Trust is essential: implementing paediatric care coordination in rural Australia.","authors":"Karen Hutchinson, Anneliese de Groot, Hayley Smithers-Sheedy, Raghu Lingam, Yvonne Zurynski","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01028-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01028-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trust is essential to effective healthcare relationships with service users and a key mechanism for successful implementation of service improvements. In rural settings, systemic barriers, such as workforce shortages, fragmented services, and access inequities, can erode trust in the healthcare system. Integrated care models that prioritise relational approaches may help build trust, particularly for families of children with medical complexity (CMC) who frequently navigate multiple healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study explored how trust was operationalised between families of CMC and care coordinators in the Rural Kids Guided Personalised Service (RuralKidsGPS) model, and how relational and contextual factors shaped trust-building processes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews with parents (n = 13), family groups (n = 9), and Paediatric Care Coordinators (PCCs) (n = 8). A hybrid inductive/deductive thematic analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), was used to evaluate the implementation barriers and enablers of RuralKidsGPS. Drawing on established theories, including the Trust Triangle and leveraging validated frameworks, we developed the Trust in Implementation Practice (TIP), comprising five relational constructs: Authenticity, Empathy, Competency, Vulnerability, and Reciprocity. These constructs guided analysis of trust-building mechanisms across families, PCCs, and the healthcare system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Factors enabling or undermining trust-building emerged as key themes from the CFIR-guided thematic analysis. Trust was fostered through PCCs' relational competencies, authenticity, empathy, and local knowledge, enabling responsive care and sustained healthcare relationships. Trust dynamics were shaped by psychosocial and economic disadvantage, geographic isolation, systemic inequities in service access, and previous adverse healthcare experiences. PCCs were perceived as trustworthy intermediaries who promoted equity, continuity, and access to care. Thematic findings identified six key contextual modifiers, leading to expansion into the TIP-Context (TIP-C) framework.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Trust operates as both a mechanism and an outcome in the implementation of integrated care. The TIP-C framework offers a novel, theory-informed lens for understanding and operationalising trust-building in healthcare implementation. Future research is needed to validate and/or amend the TIP-C in other implementation settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148474662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Implementation science infrastructure in U.S. academic institutions: a convergent mixed-methods study.","authors":"Carolina Mejia, Megan M Oakes, Zoe E Waddell, Sahar Shibeika, India Rockett, Stephanie S Sperry, John A Fuller, Lesley A Skalla, Connor Drake, Devon Check, Heather A King, Leah L Zullig","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01046-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01046-2","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Interest in implementation science (IS) has grown rapidly in recent years, leading to the development of academic centers and programs across the United States (U.S.). Limited information exists regarding how these entities are structured, funded, and sustained. This study characterizes the infrastructure, funding models, service offerings, and organizational structures and practices of IS centers and programs within U.S. academic institutions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We conducted a convergent mixed methods study using a structured web-based review and a REDCap survey. Targeted Google searches of .edu and .org domains were used to identify IS centers and programs based at U.S. academic medical and public health institutions. Forty-eight centers met the inclusion criteria after screening. Website data included institutional affiliation, leadership structure, focus areas, partnerships and service offerings. Program leaders from identified centers were invited to complete a survey examining funding sources, success metrics, workforce development, partnerships, and leadership succession. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and open-ended responses were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods. Findings were integrated during interpretation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;The 48 centers and programs were distributed across all major U.S. regions, with 54.2% located at public institutions. Research combined with mentorship and/or teaching was the most common focus area (77.0%). Training (54.2%) and consultation (45.8%) were the most reported service offerings, whereas only 27.1% publicly described community engagement support. Among 12 of 13 survey respondents with complete funding data, grants were the most frequently reported funding source (83.3%), followed by institutional support (50.0%), with limited funding diversification. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings suggested that workforce development, mentorship, and partnerships were viewed as important strengths among survey participants, while sustainability challenges were linked to reliance on external funding, staffing constraints, and limited succession planning. Quantitative findings related to funding concentration and traditional success metrics were reinforced by qualitative themes describing Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) dependence, workforce challenges, and misalignment between academic incentives and long-term implementation impact.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Academic IS centers and programs play an important role in workforce development, mentorship, training, and implementation support but continue to rely substantially on external funding to support core activities. Findings highlight the need for diversified funding strategies, stronger institutional investments, proactive succession planning, and broader impact-oriented success metrics that better capture long-term implementation impact ","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148474719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Specifying pathway requirements for mobile outreach cancer testing before rollout: an implementation-aware Target Product Profile method.","authors":"Patrick Kierkegaard, Bowen Su, Masood Moghul, Declan Cahill, Nicholas David James","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01041-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01041-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mobile cancer-testing services can widen access by taking testing to community or workplace sites. But the test is only one part of the pathway: eligibility explanation, informed choice, privacy, documentation, result communication, referral, and follow-up move outside clinics. Unless specified before rollout, these tasks can make a service easier to attend but harder to govern. In diagnostic-test development, a Target Product Profile is an advance brief defining a test's intended users, use setting, and minimum and preferred features. To create an equivalent brief for outreach services, we adapted that approach into an implementation-aware Target Product Profile (iTPP). The iTPP turns evidence on delivery and handover into a requirement register, separating what must be in place, what would improve quality, what depends on local set-up, and what needs further evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a qualitative method-development study using the Man Van mobile prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing pathway as an exemplar, not an effectiveness evaluation. We interviewed attenders (n = 23), planning and delivery stakeholders (n = 13), and prospective stakeholders (n = 11). Using the Framework Method and abductive analysis, we charted interview evidence, converted delivery and handover issues into requirement statements, judged consequences of absence, and placed unresolved quantitative or operational questions in an Evidence and Decision Agenda.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The method produced a Man Van-derived register with 42 attributes across six clusters: outreach legitimacy; privacy and dignity; deliverability; test acceptability and performance uncertainty; counselling and next steps; and data integration with primary care. Handover requirements centred on result ownership, record integration, safety-netting, and loop closure: documented responsibility acceptance by a named receiving service when action was required. Diagnostic thresholds, referral ratios, staffing ratios, outreach pacing, unit costs, and equity effects were treated as questions for further evidence, not universal requirements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The iTPP is a pre-rollout method for specifying mobile outreach cancer-testing pathways before local adaptation, implementation, or evaluation. It identifies what should be preserved, what can vary by context, and what should remain open until stronger evidence is available. This PSA exemplar demonstrates the method; it does not establish service effectiveness, validate iTPP as an independent instrument, or recommend population screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148474714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rigorous projects and grants integrating human-centered design and implementation science: 8 tips for success.","authors":"Tricia Aung, Katie P Osterhage, Andrea K Graham, Enola K Proctor, Aaron R Lyon, Sean A Munson","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01035-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01035-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Researchers and funders increasingly see potential for integrating human-centered design (HCD) and implementation science (IS) approaches to enhance the design and uptake of health interventions and implementation strategies. These approaches offer complementary strengths. HCD prioritizes developing compelling, intuitive, and adoptable innovations grounded in user and contextual needs; IS focuses on ensuring evidence-based practices reach and work for their intended populations. Integrating HCD and IS creates challenges that existing IS proposal writing guidelines do not address. HCD's inherent uncertainty-since final designs are developed through iteration rather than pre-determined-can unsettle researchers and funders accustomed to more defined endpoints. Variation in how HCD is understood adds further difficulty when collaborating across disciplines or communicating with funders. There are currently no published recommendations to help researchers design strong studies integrating HCD and IS and communicate them effectively to funders.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We present tips to support both rigorous study design and effective proposal writing that integrate HCD and IS. This draws from our experiences leading, supporting, and reviewing both funded and unfunded projects. Our considerations are informed primarily by experiences with teams in the United States in the mental health and behavioral health domains; however, we have found our findings also apply to projects globally and in other health sectors. Our intent is that this guide will advance good research that leverages both approaches and is viable for funding. We also hope that the tips will support funders in developing solicitations and evaluating proposals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is untapped potential for innovative health research integrating HCD and IS, but realizing it requires both rigorous study design and an ability to attract funding. We offer practice guidance to help researchers and funders develop quality projects and proposals, and we encourage others to build on these recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148427031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}