ArticleImplementation science communications2026
When is AI "just another innovation"? A comparative conceptual analysis of artificial intelligence and evidence-based practice implementation.
Article in Implementation science 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementation science frameworks, such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), are increasingly used to guide the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. This assumes that AI systems can be understood using frameworks developed primarily for evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, AI systems vary substantially in their technical architecture, degree of autonomy, dependence on local data, regulatory status and capacity for change after deployment.
aimTo examine how different types of AI systems align with, extend or challenge core assumptions in implementation science, using CFIR as a diagnostic lens.
methodWe conducted a comparative conceptual analysis of foundational implementation science literature, literature on complex interventions and technology-enabled care, and empirical and conceptual studies on AI implementation in healthcare. CFIR was used as an analytic lens to identify points of fit and tension across its five domains. The analysis was not designed as a systematic or scoping review, but as a theoretically informed comparison of recurring concepts and assumptions across bodies of literature.
resultsAI systems differ substantially in their implementation implications. Fixed or locked AI tools may resemble conventional digital interventions, whereas adaptive, data-dependent and generative AI systems raise more substantial challenges. Our analysis suggests that, across CFIR domains, adaptive and generative AI systems foreground issues such as opacity, probabilistic outputs, dependence on local data ecosystems, performance drift, vendor-mediated updating, regulatory uncertainty, professional identity tensions and the need for calibrated trust. These issues can often be mapped to existing frameworks, but in some cases they challenge assumptions of intervention stability, boundedness and evidentiary closure.
conclusionsAI should not be treated as a homogeneous implementation object. Existing implementation science frameworks remain analytically valuable, but require refinement when applied to AI systems whose behavior depends on changing data, infrastructure, governance and use contexts. Implementation of such systems is better conceptualized as lifecycle stewardship than as a bounded rollout.
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.