Causal thinking for embedded, integrated implementation research

• Published in: Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice Vol. 15; no. 1; pp. 125 - 141
• Main Authors: Kainz, Kirsten, Metz, Allison
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bristol Policy Press 01.01.2019; The Policy Press
• Subjects: Causality; Cognition & reasoning; Complexity; Evidence Based Practice; Evidence based research; Implementation; Integration; Intervention; Knowledge Level; Logical Thinking; Research Methodology; Research Methods; Uptake; research methods; integration; complexity; implementation
• ISSN: 1744-2648; 1744-2656
• DOI: 10.1332/174426416X14779418584665

Despite increasing use of implementation frameworks, research evidence indicates that the uptake of evidence-based practice is minimally realised. Reasons for the lack of up-take may be: 1) lack of fit between evidence-based interventions and local contexts; 2) lack of knowledge of how and when to adapt an evidence-based intervention to promote effective practice in local contexts; and 3) a frequently used implementation research agenda that limits new insights to achieve effective practice. In response to these concerns we propose an embedded, integrated research agenda motivated with causal thinking for knowledge of when and how to adapt interventions and implementation to achieve effective practice.