While the importance of implementation science is increasingly recognized, the growing field finds itself fragmented across disciplines. Researchers in different disciplines, with different traditions and interests, use varied language to describe common concepts or, conversely, use common language to describe different concepts. Making steps toward developing a “generalizable framework” is the intent of the analysis reported in this article. A unified field of implementation can contribute to improving the impact of innovations supported by evidence. This analysis utilizes the six components of the Active Implementation Frameworks (AIF), initially developed to reflect many disciplines, as a grounding from which other known implementation frameworks are examined. A qualitative content analysis of 23 implementation frameworks was conducted. Findings reveal more similarity than difference across frameworks; including a strong focus on the Implementation Drivers. Differences are seen in the variation of frameworks addressing Systemic Change or Implementation Teams. Implications for implementation practice are discussed.
Download: Implementation Frameworks: An Analysis