Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Community Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences.
2015 (English)In: Implementation Science, ISSN 1748-5908, Vol. 10, no 53Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Implementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers. Discussion: Theoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks). Summary: This article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited "how-to" support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central , 2015. Vol. 10, no 53
Keyword [en]
Theory; Model; Framework; Evaluation; Context
National Category
Basic Medicine
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-118047DOI: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0ISI: 000353380100001PubMedID: 25895742OAI: diva2:812993
Available from: 2015-05-21 Created: 2015-05-20 Last updated: 2015-05-26

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(617 kB)244 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 617 kBChecksum SHA-512
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nilsen, Per
By organisation
Division of Community MedicineFaculty of Health Sciences
In the same journal
Implementation Science
Basic Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 244 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 353 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link