Implementation science and entrepreneurship: Two complementary frameworks for advancing pharmacy practice

Background

Academic leaders and clinicians have promoted implementation science (IS) and entrepreneurship (EN) as frameworks for transforming pharmacy education and practice. Although distinct, IS and EN share many of the same processes and goals in promoting solutions to problems in healthcare.

Objectives

To distinguish the similarities and differences between IS and EN. Major components of each method will be evaluated for relative strengths and limitations in advancing pharmacy practice interventions.

Methods

Basic components of IS and EN were compared. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research Intervention (CFIR) was used to represent the elements of IS and the resource-based theory of competitive advantage was used to operationalize key constructs in entrepreneurship. The five CFIR domains matched well with the five constructs of the resource-based theory of competitive advantage, allowing five common components for comparisons: (1) intervention, (2) cost benefit, (3) market viability, (4) organizational setting, and (5) characteristics of the individuals and inputs.

Results

IS and EN are two scholarly approaches that differ primarily in how they frame research questions. IS frameworks prioritize the study of the implementation of evidence-based interventions and their theoretical contributions. They focus predominantly on quantifying the impact of the intervention and less so on the needs of community partners, market viability of intervention, and return on investment. EN is more open to interventions that lack strong objective evidence for effectiveness, relying more on what makes an intervention financially sustainable and profitable in markets.

Conclusion

IS and EN both examine the role of the intervention, organization, market viability, inputs, and financial return on the successful adoption and sustainability of interventions. Either framework can be used to advance the adoption and dissemination of pharmacy practice interventions, as long as researchers understand the limitations of each framework.