The Future of Implementation Science for Public Health and Healthcare: Insights From the Swiss Implementation Science Network (IMPACT) Conference 2024

Le résumé fourni par la source

Founded in 2019, the Swiss Implementation Science Network (IMPACT; https://impact-dph.unibas.ch) aims to strengthen the systematic uptake of evidence into healthcare and public health practice in Switzerland and beyond (1)(2)(3). By fostering collaboration across research, policy, public health, clinical care, and communities, IMPACT seeks to improve population health, reduce research waste, and accelerate the translation of innovations into real-world settings. Implementation science (IS) is the scientific study of methods that promote the integration of evidencebased interventions into routine practice (4). Core IS approaches include contextual analysis of multilevel barriers and facilitators (e.g. assessment of readiness for change (5)(6), continuous stakeholder engagement and co-creation, theory-and contextualinformed implementation strategies, theory-and contextual-informed intervention development/adaptation, and evaluation of both effectiveness and implementation outcomes (2).At the third IMPACT conference in Geneva in November 2024, experts and 126 participants discussed how IS can enhance the societal impact of research and support timely, equitable uptake of evidence across healthcare and public health. This paper summarizes key insights from the roundtable on positioning IS within research infrastructures, together with findings from an interactive poll on expectations of the IMPACT network. We highlight the potential of IS to improve healthcare and outline priorities to strengthen its capacity and infrastructure in Switzerland.A substantial proportion of health research fails to translate into practice, delaying benefits for patients and populations (7)(8)(9). Implementation science holds promise to bridge the gap between research findings and real-world application by offering methods for timely knowledge translation. It is widely acknowledged that implementation science should be integrated early -ideally during the development of innovations such as medications, technologies, or services across all domains of health care, including public health. As one conference panelist emphasized, the question is not whether implementation science is important, but rather, "How can we survive without implementation science?".Implementation science is vital for public health, where change occurs at the level of populations, systems, and policies rather than individual patients. Its methods can speed the adoption of preventive interventions, screening programs, vaccination strategies, and health promotion policies. Recent articles in the International Journal of Public Health highlight this scope, from organized colorectal cancer screening in Switzerland (10) and the CHESS mixed-methods HPV screening intervention for women living with HIV in Nigeria (11) to translational work on healthy aging (12).Together, these examples show that effective public health implementation requires broader methodologies that explicitly address real-world translation. Strengthening implementation science infrastructure will therefore advance not only clinical care but also prevention, population health, and global health efforts.Despite its recognized importance, implementation science faces several barriers to integration within existing research infrastructures, healthcare systems, and society (13). Panelists identified a number of them with the main ones being that (Figure 1): Roundtable panelists from diverse health sciences backgrounds, as well as from a foundation, proposed several strategies to advance implementation science and address the identified barriers. These strategies include (i) implementation science education and training; (ii) funding and rational resource allocation; (iii) inter-and transdisciplinary collaboration; and (iv) strategic development (Figure 1). To strengthen funding for implementation science, panelists proposed developing a national strategic roadmap for large, targeted implementation science grants, as well as integrating such funding into existing programs. They also encouraged seeking alternative funding sources beyond traditional research grants and demonstrating the value and competitiveness of implementation science to attract broader support.Building ecosystems that connect research, clinical practice, public health, patients, decision-makers, industry, and education was considered essential. For example, greater efforts are needed to ensure that implementation strategies tested in implementation science projects are adequately supported and adopted by practitioners and health systems, enabling them to leverage proven approaches to foster changes in practice and, ultimately, reduce research waste. Encouraging dialogue with IS skeptics and critics was also highlighted as a way to broaden understanding and support for the field.Panelists recommended establishing a clear, long-term strategy for the Swiss IMPACT network, with measurable goals and key performance indicators that reflect stakeholder input. Suggested actions included developing a national implementation science roadmap, appointing a network coordinator, and making implementation science a required component of research proposals. Panelists also emphasized the importance of developing case studies to demonstrate the societal value of implementation science and focusing on sustainable, scalable solutions to real-world problems. Expanding implementation science beyond clinical care to public health and prevention, was strongly encouraged, as illustrated by the Swiss colorectal cancer screening in Switzerland (10).Based on the roundtable discussion with experts, several priorities emerged for the future of implementation science (Figure 1):Developing robust health economic models, including cost-benefit analyses, to inform policymakers and decision-makers is essential. Such approaches can support the development of comprehensive economic frameworks that capture system-level impacts, thereby enabling a deeper understanding of the nuanced value of implementation science.Implementation science principles should be integrated at higher levels of healthcare organizations and public health by educating leaders about the complexity of implementation processes and the waste of resources that occurs when implementation fails. Panelists also recommended building new ecosystems that connect academia, clinical practice, public health, and education, similar to the Medical Research Council (MRC) Centres of Research Excellence in the United Kingdom.To further establish the value of implementation science, standardized metrics for measuring real-world and societal impact should be developed, alongside rigorous evaluation of large-scale implementation science initiatives. Success stories, as well as lessons learned from failures, should be widely shared. The field would also benefit from increased international collaboration, including the sharing of best practices, the development of global standards and guidelines, and the establishment of international networks of implementation science researchers, public health experts and clinical practitioners.Results from an interactive poll (i.e., Mentimeter) conducted at the 2024 IMPACT Conference in Geneva highlighted growing interest in the network and its mission (Figure 1). Of the 77 respondents (representing 61% of the 126 participants), more than half expressed interest in becoming members, indicating a strong foundation for future growth.Participants showed the greatest enthusiasm for interactive and educational activities, such as conferences, webinars, and courses on implementation science, reflecting a clear demand for knowledge-sharing and skill-building opportunities. There was moderate interest in more hands-on involvement, including participation in methodology development projects and exploration of funding opportunities. The Swiss Implementation Science repository and YouTube channel received lower ratings; however, this may be

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.