ArticleImplementation science communications2026
Topics for implementation research: Implementation researchers' and practitioners' views in The Netherlands.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, implementation research has gained a renewed attention in the Netherlands. However, limited national funding for implementation research has mainly resulted in case- and context-specific descriptive data. To help prioritize research that holds high scientific value and practical relevance, this study aimed to identify gaps in both implementation science and implementation practice.
methodsA two-stage study was conducted combining multiple methods to collect data from implementation researchers working in the healthcare sector in the Netherlands. A two-round e-Delphi study was employed to identify research priorities amongst implementation researchers. In addition, a survey was conducted with practitioners to identify implementation knowledge gaps and needs in implementation practice.
resultsTwenty-six (55%) of the 47 invited researchers participated in Round 1 of the e-Delphi, leading to the identification of 31 research topics categorized into 7 themes. In Round 2, 22 of the 26 researchers (85%) completed the process, reaching consensus on 12 topics. These topics were grouped into six themes and linked to four areas of research: implementation, sustainability, scale-up, and de-implementation. The themes include: (1) understanding determinants, (2) matching strategies to determinants, (3) implementation strategies, (4) measuring implementation outcomes, (5) theories, models and frameworks, and (6) research designs. The survey of 74 practitioners revealed 230 implementation knowledge gaps, which were then triangulated with the e-Delphi results, highlighting specific research topics that emphasize implementation capacity and the need for pragmatic tools to enhance evidence-based implementation in practice.
conclusionsBy integrating insights from both implementation researchers and practitioners, the research agenda addresses topics that are relevant to both fields. Recommendations were made to advance the scientific field and improve implementation practice. This research agenda can guide research coordination and policymaking, aiming to consolidate research efforts in the Netherlands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.