ArticleImplementation science communications2026
The champion paradox: the dual effects of implementation champions on the sustainment of evidence-based practices.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChampions are individuals who demonstrate strong commitment to promoting sustained implementation efforts through their expertise, enthusiasm, and influence, and are known to enable the implementation of evidence-based educational programs. However, existing research has predominantly examined champion effectiveness during implementation and early sustainment phases, with limited attention to their role in long-term program or innovation sustainment. This study investigated how champions influence organisational capacity for sustained program implementation over extended timeframes.
methodsA multiple case study design examined champion dynamics across three Australian organisations sustaining implementation of the Abecedarian Approach Australia (3a) for 10 or more years. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants, including senior leaders, program managers, educational leaders, and practitioners. Thematic analysis informed by critical realist epistemology identified mechanisms through which champions influenced long-term sustainability.
resultsCross-case analysis suggested the presence of what we term a 'champion paradox': the factors that make champions effective in driving implementation may simultaneously create systemic vulnerabilities that can threaten long-term program sustainability. Across these cases, the paradox appeared to operate through three interconnected mechanisms: (1) knowledge concentration, where expertise accumulates in individuals rather than organisational systems; (2) dependency creation, where organisations become reliant on champions for quality assurance, problem-solving, and program continuity; and (3) system capacity prevention, where champion effectiveness conceals organisational need for systematic capacity building. These mechanisms were interpreted as forming a self-reinforcing cycle that may strengthen champion dependency while inhibiting organisational independent capacity.
conclusionsThe champion paradox framework invites reconsideration of widespread assumptions that individual champions inherently strengthen organisational implementation capacity. Findings suggest potential value of a shift from champion-dependent to more system-dependent implementation models, with implications for champion selection and development, organisational design, sustainability assessment, and policy frameworks. Implementation strategies may be strengthened by positioning champions as transitional resources focused on building collective organisational capacity rather than as permanent drivers of program quality.
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.