Debbie L Humphries, Carolyn M Audet, Bijal A Balasubramanian, Nanette Benbow, Christopher G Kemp, Robin Gaines Lanzi, Sung-Jae Lee, Hannah Mestel, Alexandra B Morshed, Brian Mustanski, April Pettit, Borsika A Rabin, Olivia Sadler, Alison B Hamilton, Mary-Louise E Millett, Sheree Schwartz, Kenneth Sherr, Nicole A Stadnick, & Dennis H Li
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: April 2025
Chelsea L Kracht, Alison Tovar, Kim M Gans, Rebecca E Lee, Pooja S Tandon, Tayla von Ash, & Lucine Francis
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: March 2025
Yanfang Su, Heather L Bullock, Michael Trisolini, Karen M Emmons
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: November 2024
Policy implementation science (IS) is an emerging field that intersects implementation science and public policy studies to support the translation of evidence into policy. As a multidisciplinary field, Policy IS uses methodologies and frameworks from economics, political science, sociology, public administration, knowledge translation, and other fields. Policy IS would benefit from broader consensus on definitions, theories, frameworks, methodologies, and outcomes, so that a wide range of studies could build on a common conceptual foundation and thus build scientific knowledge more rapidly. The objective of this Research Topic is to reach consensus and drive learning for action in policy implementation by strengthening...
**This excerpt is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Thiru M Annaswamy, Prateek Grove, Natalie F Douglas, Kathleen Poploski, Catherine A Anderson, Melissa A Clark, Ann Marie Flores, Brian J Hafner, Jeanne M Hoffman, Adam R Kinney, Kristin Ressel, Jennifer Sánchez , Margarite J Whitten, Linda Resnik, Christine M McDonough
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: July 2024
As health care attempts to bridge the gap between evidence and practice, the concept of the learning health system (LHS) is becoming increasingly relevant. LHS integrates evidence with health systems data, driving health care quality and outcomes through updates in policy, practice, and care delivery. In addition, LHS research is becoming critically important as there are several initiatives underway to increase research capacity, expertise, and implementation, including attempts to stimulate increasing numbers of LHS researchers. Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians (physiatrists), nurses, therapists (physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, clinical psychologists), and scientists are affiliated with LHSs. As LHS research expands in health care systems, better awareness and understanding of LHSs and LHS research competencies are key for rehabilitation professionals including physiatrists. To address this need, the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) identified 33 core competencies, grouped into eight domains, for training LHS researchers. The domains are: (1) Systems Science; (2) Research Questions and Standards of Scientific Evidence; (3) Research Methods; (4) Informatics; (5) Ethics of Research and Implementation in Health Systems; (6) Improvement and Implementation Science; (7) Engagement, Leadership, and Research Management; and the recently added (8) Health and Healthcare Equity and Justice. The purpose of this commentary is to define LHS and its relevance to physiatrists, present the role of implementation science (IS) in LHSs and application of IS principles to design LHSs, illustrate current LHS research in rehabilitation, and discuss potential solutions to improve awareness and to stimulate interest in LHS research and IS among physiatrists in LHSs.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Audrey Harkness, Ali Giusto, Alison B. Hamilton, Raul U. Hernandez-Ramirez, Donna Spiegelman, Bryan J. Weiner, Rinad S. Beidas, Michaela E. Larson, Sheri A. Lippman, Milton L. Wainberg, and Justin D. Smith
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: June 2024
Implementation science (IS) offers methods to systematically achieve the Ending the HIV Epidemic goals in the United States, as well as the global UNAIDS targets. Federal funders such as the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) have invested in implementation research to achieve these goals, including supporting the AIDS Research Centres (ARCs), which focus on high-impact science in HIV and mental health (MH). To facilitate capacity building for the HIV/MH research workforce in IS, “grey areas,” or areas of IS that are confusing, particularly for new investigators, should be addressed in the context of HIV/MH research.
A group of IS experts affiliated with NIMH-funded ARCs convened to identify common and challenging grey areas. The group generated a preliminary list of 19 grey areas in HIV/MH-related IS. From the list, the authors developed a survey which was distributed to all ARCs to prioritize grey areas to address in this paper. ARC members across the United States (N = 60) identified priority grey areas requiring clarification. This commentary discusses topics with 40% or more endorsement. The top grey areas that ARC members identified were: (1) Differentiating implementation strategies from interventions; (2) Determining when an intervention has sufficient evidence for adaptation; (3) Integrating recipient perspectives into HIV/MH implementation research; (4) Evaluating whether an implementation strategy is evidence-based; (5) Identifying rigorous approaches for evaluating the impact of implementation strategies in the absence of a control group or randomization; and (6) Addressing innovation in HIV/MH IS grants. The commentary addresses each grey area by drawing from the existing literature (when available), providing expert guidance on addressing each in the context of HIV/MH research, and providing domestic and global HIV and HIV/MH case examples that address these grey areas.
HIV/MH IS is key to achieving domestic and international goals for ending HIV transmission and mitigating its impact. Guidance offered in this paper can help to overcome challenges to rigorous and high-impact HIV/MH implementation research.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Gabriella M McLoughlin, Shiriki Kumanyika, Yanfang Su, Ross C Brownson, Jennifer O Fisher, & Karen M Emmons
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: March 2024
Policies represent a key opportunity to improve the health outcomes of populations, and if implemented well, can reduce disparities affecting marginalized populations. Many policies are only evaluated on whether they elicit their intended health outcome. However, a lack of understanding regarding if and how they are implemented may hinder the intended impact overall and on addressing health disparities. Implementation science offers an array of frameworks and methodological approaches for assessing policy delivery, yet few examples exist that meaningfully include health equity as a core focus.
This commentary describes the importance of equity-informed implementation measurement by providing case examples and implications for assessment. In addition, we highlight examples of emerging work in policy implementation grounded in health equity with suggested steps for moving the field forward. The ultimate goal is to move toward open-access measurement approaches that can be adapted to study implementation of a variety of policies at different stages of implementation, driven by input from marginalized populations and implementation practitioners, to move the needle on addressing health disparities.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Quinhas Fernandes, Orvalho Augusto & Kenneth Sherr
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: February 2024
A thorough examination of context, and how it influences implementation of evidence-based interventions, is a promising strategy for enhancing child survival initiatives. Spreading approaches that are identified as drivers of successful reduction in under-five mortality from ‘exemplar’ countries could be pivotal in leading to reductions in other settings facing stagnant mortality rates, in particular for low- and middle-income countries with high disease burden and insufficient programmatic capacity to effectively implement evidence-based interventions at scale. Yet there remains a lack of robust analytic methods to accurately assess mortality and describe the drivers of interventions’ implementation success at both national and subnational levels. The field of implementation science and its defining targets and tools is well positioned to address this knowledge gap by integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods into an adaptable evaluation framework that can be tailored to meet the specific needs across varying country contexts. These tools enhance the measurement of population health outcomes and provide crucial evidence on implementation barriers and facilitators that can inform policies that can be adjusted for diverse contexts. This commentary aims to emphasize the role of implementation research in understanding how exemplar countries achieved significant improvements in child survival and in identifying replicable lessons for other settings. Ultimately, all manuscripts underscore the relevance of implementation research in bolstering the reduction of under-five mortality.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Benjamin O. Anderson, Catherine Duggan, and John R. Scheel
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: October 2023
Jillian Neary, Anjuli D Wagner, Vincent Omondi, Verlinda Otieno, Cyrus Mugo, Dalton C Wamalwa, Elizabeth Maleche-Obimbo, Grace C John-Stewart, Jennifer A Slyker, & Irene N Njuguna
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: July 2021
Nagham J. Ailabouni, Emily Reeve, Christian D. Helfrich, Sarah N. Hilmer, & Bradley H. Wagenaar
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: June 2021