ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2026
Implementation science and the clinical trial workforce: A national needs assessment of training and practice.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Translating clinical trials into routine healthcare remains fractured and inconsistent, reflecting an enduring challenge in bridging research and practice. Implementation science can be applied to the clinical trial context, to better understand and improve how evidence is adopted and adapted in practice. Building the clinical trial workforce capability in implementation science for clinical trial design, conduct, and dissemination has the potential to address challenges of evidence translation at a much earlier stage of the research pipeline. Aim: To determine, across the Australian and New Zealand clinical trials workforce (including consumers), familiarity with and understanding of implementation science, interest to upskill in methodologies, and barriers to and preferences for, accessing support. Method: Online survey developed with Likert scale and open-ended responses. Snowball recruitment from clinical trial networks and centres, and QR code promotion. Results: 353 responses received across diverse geographies, professions, and clinical areas. Over 40% were unsure how to define their understanding of implementation science in the context of clinical trials. Most participants (56.7%) were familiar with some methodologies but had limited experience of using them. Training interests were moderate to high, particularly on embedding implementation science in trial design, recruitment strategies, sustainment, and scalability. Over 80% believed competency in implementation science will become essential to the clinical trial workforce in the future. Conclusion: This needs assessment of a clinically, professionally and geographically diverse clinical trial workforce reflects that implementation science is an emerging field of value in this context and there is an appetite for training and support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.