BackgroundIdentifying, developing, and testing implementation strategies are important goals of implementation science. However, these efforts have been complicated by the use of inconsistent language and inadequate descriptions of implementation strategies in the literature. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aimed to refine a published compilation of implementation strategy terms and definitions by systematically gathering input from a wide range of stakeholders with expertise in implementation science and clinical practice.MethodsPurposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation and clinical practice who engaged in three rounds of a modified Delphi process to generate consensus on implementation strategies and definitions. The first and second rounds involved Web-based surveys soliciting comments on implementation strategy terms and definitions. After each round, iterative refinements were made based upon participant feedback. The third round involved a live polling and consensus process via a Web-based platform and conference call.ResultsParticipants identified substantial concerns with 31% of the terms and/or definitions and suggested five additional strategies. Seventy-five percent of definitions from the originally published compilation of strategies were retained after voting. Ultimately, the expert panel reached consensus on a final compilation of 73 implementation strategies.ConclusionsThis research advances the field by improving the conceptual clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of implementation strategies that can be used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Future phases of ERIC will focus on developing conceptually distinct categories of strategies as well as ratings for each strategy’s importance and feasibility. Next, the expert panel will recommend multifaceted strategies for hypothetical yet real-world scenarios that vary by sites’ endorsement of evidence-based programs and practices and the strength of contextual supports that surround the effort.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe movement of evidence-based practices (EBPs) into routine clinical usage is not spontaneous, but requires focused efforts. The field of implementation science has developed to facilitate the spread of EBPs, including both psychosocial and medical interventions for mental and physical health concerns.DiscussionThe authors aim to introduce implementation science principles to non-specialist investigators, administrators, and policymakers seeking to become familiar with this emerging field. This introduction is based on published literature and the authors’ experience as researchers in the field, as well as extensive service as implementation science grant reviewers.Implementation science is “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other EBPs into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services.” Implementation science is distinct from, but shares characteristics with, both quality improvement and dissemination methods. Implementation studies can be either assess naturalistic variability or measure change in response to planned intervention. Implementation studies typically employ mixed quantitative-qualitative designs, identifying factors that impact uptake across multiple levels, including patient, provider, clinic, facility, organization, and often the broader community and policy environment. Accordingly, implementation science requires a solid grounding in theory and the involvement of trans-disciplinary research teams.SummaryThe business case for implementation science is clear: As healthcare systems work under increasingly dynamic and resource-constrained conditions, evidence-based strategies are essential in order to ensure that research investments maximize healthcare value and improve public health. Implementation science plays a critical role in supporting these efforts.

Dendritic cells (DCs) are unique in their ability to stimulate T cells and initiate adaptive immunity. Injection of mice with the cytokine Flt3-ligand (FL) dramatically expands mature lymphoid and myeloid-related DC subsets. In contrast, injection of a polyethylene glycolmodified form of granulocyte͞macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) into mice only expands the myeloidrelated DC subset. These DC subsets differ in the cytokine profiles they induce in T cells in vivo. The lymphoid-related subset induces high levels of the Th1 cytokines interferon ␥ and interleukin (IL)-2 but little or no Th2 cytokines. In contrast, the myeloid-related subset induces large amounts of the Th2 cytokines IL-4 and IL-10, in addition to interferon ␥ and IL-2. FL-or GM-CSF-treated mice injected with soluble ovalbumin display dramatic increases in antigen-specific antibody titers, but the isotype profiles seem critically dependent on the cytokine used. Although FL treatment induces up to a 10,000-fold increase in ovalbumin-specific IgG2a and a more modest increase in IgG1 titers, GM-CSF treatment favors a predominantly IgG1 response with little increase in IgG2a levels. These data suggest that distinct DC subsets have strikingly different inf luences on the type of immune response generated in vivo and may thus be targets for pharmacological intervention.