Evidence mapPaperPMID 41310907Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2025

So what? Elevating the impact of implementation science.

Ross C Brownson, Juliet Iwelunmor, Thomas A Odeny, Enola K Proctor, Elvin H Geng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Ross C BrownsonPrevention Research Center, School of Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA. rbrownson@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4260-2205
Juliet IwelunmorDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Thomas A OdenyAlvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Enola K ProctorBrown School at Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Elvin H GengDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine and Center for Dissemination and Implementation, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR002345 · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · 2025 to 2025
$9.3M
The Washington University Center for Diabetes Translation ResearchP30DK092950 · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · 2025 to 2025
$850k
Implementation Research Institute for Mental Health Services IRI-MHSR25MH080916 · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · 2025 to 2025
$255k
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development UG1HD113156NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR002345NCI NIH HHS P50CA244431NIDDK NIH HHS P30DK092950NIMH NIH HHS R25MH080916
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the substantial public funding of health-related research, tangible benefits of this support must be demonstrated. Implementation science provides actionable methods to enhance population health, reduce health inequities, and guide effective public health and clinical practices and policies. We must elevate the notion of impact (the "so-what gap") and the role of implementation science, particularly in university settings. MAIN TEXT: We distinguish between scientific output and impacts. Impacts in implementation science are commonly defined as improvements in health outcomes, quality of life, quality of services, or policy change. In contrast, traditional academic outputs, such as citation counts and grant awards, hold minimal, direct societal relevance. Principles of audience segmentation (partitioning the target audience for dissemination and implementation into smaller groups by meaningful distinctions), which are increasingly applied in implementation science, can enhance impact. We highlight trade-offs in enhancing the focus on impact across multiple categories (e.g., accountability, evaluation). We describe four essential domains of implementation impact: speed of research translation, sustainability, de-implementation, and equity. Multiple examples, across diverse topics, illustrate these domains (e.g., HIV treatment, use of community health workers). To boost impact via more active dissemination and implementation of research findings, we provide ideas within five categories: (1) co-production of knowledge, (2) tailored dissemination, (3) organizational support, (4) capacity building, and (5) implementation metrics.

conclusionsGenerating new research knowledge does not guarantee societal impact. For implementation science to become more relevant to societal needs, enhancing and evaluating its impacts matter; otherwise, systemic changes required in institutions will continue to evolve slowly. We argue that impactful implementation science involves developing new skill sets and uncovering meaningful work that changes the field while adopting a collaborative working approach with individual researchers, their organizations, funders, and the communities they aim to benefit. Navigating the hurdles and translating research into practice and policy can amplify societal impact, making implementation science more applicable, accessible, and equitable for all.

Indexed as

Clinical practiceEquityImplementation sciencePopulation healthScale-up

Identifiers

PMID41310907
PMCPMC12763859

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.