Abstract
Background: The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for IR and describes a scoping review protocol to identify and map the extent to which IR has examined these priorities to date.Methods: Implementation Science is the leading journal for publishing IR and receives over 800 submissions annually. Thus, this scoping review will focus on IR published in Implementation Science between its inception in 2006 and 12/31/2019. The current scoping review and evidence map protocol has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey & O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. All research articles and short reports will be reviewed. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to-date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram, which integrates the four priority domains, three priority aims, and four priority testable hypotheses, to develop a map of the evidence (or lack thereof).Discussion: This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on one or more of IR’s priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of NAS-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3vhuj/
Dissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map
