Potential Factors Contributing to and Strategies for Reducing Implementation Science-Practice Gap: A Discussion

Abstract

Implementation science and implementation practice are two sides of the same coin, as both focus on translating evidence into practice. Implementation science is concerned with generating new approaches for translating evidence into practice. However, implementation practice aims at application and adaptation of the approaches derived from implementation science in real-world practice and policymaking. Research demonstrated that a gap exists between implementation science and implementation practice making it difficult to expedite the translation of evidence into practice. There has been ongoing discussion about the widening implementation science-practice gap, which negatively impacts the uptake of evidence in real-world practice. Therefore, it is useful to understand potential issues contributing to this gap so that implementation scientists and partners (i.e., practitioners, clinicians, patients, institutions, and support staff) can work together to reduce this gap. This commentary seeks to synthesize potential factors contributing to the implementation science-practice gap and offer potential strategies to address this gap. Three factors are discussed: (a) jargon-laden theoretical language, (b) divergence between theory and reality and researchers and practitioners, and (c) power differentials during implementation research. To reduce the implementation science-practice gap, implementation scientists should move beyond theoretical development, use pragmatic research measures and methodologies, and engage in transformative actions. These are not the only factors and potential strategies as there could be emerging issues as the field of implementation science and practices advances. Nevertheless, shedding light on some of these factors and solutions may encourage more discussion of these issues and the application of solutions to bridge the increasing gap.