Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Implementation science emerged to address the persistent gap between research evidence and its use in routine practice. Over the past two decades, the field has generated evidence and methods to support effective practice change, particularly in healthcare. Key outputs from the field include development of theories, models, and frameworks to guide the process of implementation, specific strategies that address barriers to implementation, and designated implementation outcomes to evaluate uptake and sustainability of a practice change. Yet evidence use in healthcare and service settings remains inconsistent, and implementation teams often do not apply these established implementation science principles and tools in real-world change efforts. This disconnect has been termed a ‘secondary gap’ in translational science, where the science of how to implement is not leveraged to achieve meaningful and lasting improvements in practice. To address this gap, a team of expert implementation scientists and practitioners developed an Evidence-Based Practice Implementation Resource Guide. The guide offers frontline teams practical tools and strategies for science-informed implementation. This brief report describes the guide’s development and key components, with the goal of informing organizations and leaders seeking to support systematic, evidence-informed, and sustainable practice change.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McNett et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: