Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39473012›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2024

Lost in translation: key lessons from conducting dissemination and implementation science in Zambia.

Patricia Maritim, Margarate Nzala Munakampe, Mweete Nglazi, Chris Mweemba, Kombatende Sikombe, Wilson Mbewe, Adam Silumbwe, Choolwe Jacobs, Joseph Mumba Zulu, Michael Herce and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Patricia MaritimImplementation Science Centre for Advancing Practice and Training (IMPACT), University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia. triciamarie20@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8920-009X
Margarate Nzala MunakampeImplementation Science Centre for Advancing Practice and Training (IMPACT), University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Mweete NglaziImplementation Science Centre for Advancing Practice and Training (IMPACT), University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Chris MweembaDepartment of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Kombatende SikombeImplementation Science Department, Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), Lusaka, Zambia.
Wilson MbeweMinistry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Adam SilumbweDepartment of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Choolwe JacobsDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Joseph Mumba ZuluDepartment of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Michael HerceImplementation Science Department, Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), Lusaka, Zambia.
Wilbroad MutaleImplementation Science Centre for Advancing Practice and Training (IMPACT), University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Hikabasa HalwindiImplementation Science Centre for Advancing Practice and Training (IMPACT), University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the field of implementation science continues to grow, its key concepts are being transferred into new contexts globally, such as Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), and its use is constantly being reexamined and expanded. Theoretical and methodological positions commonly used in implementation research and practice have great utility in our work but in many cases are at odds with LMIC contexts. As a team of implementation scientists based in Zambia, we offer this commentary as a critical self-reflection on what has worked and what could limit us from fully utilizing the field's promise for addressing health problems with contextual understanding. MAIN BODY: We used a 'premortem,' an approach used to generate potential alternatives from failed assumptions about a particular phenomenon, as a way to reflect on our experiences conducting implementation research and practice. By utilizing prospectively imagined hindsights, we were able to reflect on the past, present and possible future of the field in Zambia. Six key challenges identified were: (i) epistemic injustices; (ii) simplified conceptualizations of evidence-informed interventions; (iii) limited theorization of the complexity of low-resource contexts and it impacts on implementation; (iv) persistent lags in transforming research into practice; (v) limited focus on strategic dissemination of implementation science knowledge and (vi) existing training and capacity building initiatives' failure to engage a broad range of actors including practitioners through diverse learning models.

conclusionImplementation science offers great promise in addressing many health problems in Zambia. Through this commentary, we hope to spur discussions on how implementation scientists can reimagine the future of the field by contemplating on lessons from our experiences in LMIC settings.

Identifiers

PMID39473012
PMCPMC11520656

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.