ReviewBMC health services research2026
A paradigm shift for health equity in implementation science.
Review in BMC health services research, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch and theory in the field of implementation science (IS) are increasingly prioritizing health equity. Although this shift is an important development for the field, IS has not yet systematically engaged with theories and methods of critical social science that help to clarify the challenges and opportunities of efforts to improve health equity. In our paper, we present a summary of recent contributions to dialogue on health equity in the field of IS and highlight the value of critical social science theory to advance research and action for social justice and equity in implementation research and practice.
methodsWe conducted a targeted literature review using citation tracking on Google Scholar. We purposefully selected 10 articles and inductively identified three categories of relevant articles within the literature that represent three distinct approaches to addressing gaps in health equity for IS research and practice.
resultsThe first category brings attention to the importance of health equity in IS but remains strongly situated in the commonly accepted, mostly positivist methods and concepts of IS. The second set of articles broadens the perspective on structural factors relevant to health equity in IS, encouraging innovations of focus that hold greater potential to impact upon the social determinants of health. The third and final category includes articles that center concepts from the critical social sciences, such as intersectionality, to interrogate taken-for-granted beliefs in the field of IS, aiming to advance IS through social justice.
conclusionsWe propose a learning pathway for IS researchers, practitioners, and educators that progresses from acknowledging the need for explicit emphasis on health equity in IS toward the integration of critical social theory to advance health equity for population groups marginalized by differential axes of inequities such as class, gender, ethnicity/race, (dis)abilities and others. Such a learning pathway points toward a paradigm shift, inviting deeper critical reflection about the roles that power and oppression play in shaping IS in research and practice. This paradigm shift would lead to a stronger emphasis in IS on mitigating systemic oppression and marginalization of population groups most affected by health and social inequalities and healthcare inequities.
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.