Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: As 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. CONCLUSION: Implementation 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.
Maritim et al. (Tue,) studied this question.