ArticleGlobal health research and policy2026
Design and method considerations for equity-centered implementation science and practice: A PEDALs approach.
Article in Global health research and policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementation of preemptive pharmacogenetic testing: progress, puzzles and priorities from an implementation science perspective.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The persistent "know-do gap"-the lag between the development of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and their routine use in health systems-remains a barrier to achieving global health equity. Implementation science offers a pathway to bridge this gap, but without an explicit equity focus, it risks reinforcing existing disparities. In this perspective, we propose an equity-centered adaptation of the PEDALs model (Problem, Evidence-based practice, Determinants, Action, Long-term use, and scale) to guide more just and context-sensitive implementation efforts in global health. We describe how each stage of PEDALs can be used to embed equity considerations in implementation research and practice. These include identifying root causes of inequity-linked health problems (P), using both scientific and practice-based evidence while adapting or de-implementing interventions (E), engaging marginalized voices when analyzing barriers and facilitators (D), co-designing contextually grounded implementation strategies (A), and measuring long-term implementation outcomes through an equity lens (L), including attention to scalability, iterative learning, and proper design and methods (s). We highlight methodological considerations-such as hybrid designs, embedded and workflow-based research, and rapid and participatory methods-that support timely, relevant, and equitable implementation. Our model builds on the concept of "radical incrementalism" to emphasize steady, equity-driven change that is responsive to diverse settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This modified PEDALs-based approach offers a practical structure for design and methodological considerations in advancing equity-centered implementation science.
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.