Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us Support


Latest comments

Correction to the sample size description (posted by the authors) (Katie Dainty, 20 August 2015)

Dear... read full comment

Comment on: Dainty et al. Implementation Science, 6:4

Observation regarding sampling and the discussion of findings (Anda Bayliss, 13 July 2015)

I really enjoyed reading this paper, being strong in its methodology and making a valuable contribution to knowledge and practice. Touching on both staffing levels and implementation of guidance domains, it is very topical, but also user-friendly. I would only like to make a couple of observations in support of the discussion of non-significant... read full comment

Comment on: de Vos et al. Implementation Science, 10:95

Misquotation reference 18 (Sietse Wieringa, 25 June 2015)

We were kindly notified by Anita Kothari about a misquotation of her work in our article due to a mistake in attribution of quotes. We apologise for this error. The following quotation is... read full comment

Comment on: Wieringa et al. Implementation Science, 10:45

Congratulations to all... (Sylvia Hysong, 23 November 2014)

Delighted to see such an international panel of reviewers -- 18 countries are represented!  Best wishes for a productive and scholarly 2014. read full comment

Comment on: Sales et al. Implementation Science, 9:9

Figure 1. Title (Melissa Park, 27 October 2014)

Please note that the title for Figure 1. should read: Anticipated timeline of the research design: Methodology and sub-aims for each stage of the project. read full comment

Comment on: Park et al. Implementation Science, 9:119

New reporting statement (CONSORT extension) to guide intervention reporting (Tammy Hoffmann, 22 September 2014)

read full comment

Comment on: Bryant et al. Implementation Science, 9:94

A tailored mixed methods approach for analysis of multiple interventions at varing time points in different organisations participating in a quality improvement collaborative (Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena, 14 July 2014)

Taljaard et al make some interesting suggestions in their commentary on our recent paper [1]. We agree that segmented regression or the broken stick model is useful and we have used it ourselves profitably [2]. In this case though, we wonder whether it is the most suitable or only... read full comment

Comment on: Taljaard et al. Implementation Science, 9:77

Author's correction (Kim Holtzer-Goor, 14 March 2013)

After publication of this article [Holtzer-Goor et al], the authors noted a missing space in Table 6. 'Apart' should read 'a part' resulting in the following quotation: "With respect to glaucoma care, we have started to investigate whether a part of the activities that take place here could be substituted to optometrists who are closer to the patient¿s home."
Besides, the abbreviation 'Nza' in Table 2 and Table 5 remained unexplained. It means Dutch Health Care Authority. The authors apologise for any inconvenience this has caused. read full comment

Comment on: Holtzer-Goor et al. Implementation Science, 8:14

General Comment (Frances Ehrlich, 12 July 2012)

A very interesting read, pity the logic model was not available to view with the provisional PDF publication. I hope it encourages more evaluators/organisations to publish information on protocols /methods for evaluating research funding... read full comment

Comment on: McLean et al. Implementation Science, 7:57

Think beyond the evidence (Pritpal S Tamber, 02 July 2012)

Dear Editor... read full comment

Comment on: Grimshaw et al. Implementation Science, 7:50

THERE ARE 2 TYPOS IN OUR DOCUMENT (Melissa Brouwers, 07 June 2012)

Dear... read full comment

Comment on: Brouwers et al. Implementation Science, 6:112

Typo in reference (Bruno Rushforth, 07 June 2012)

Enjoyed reading this article.
Think there is a typo in reference 21. Should this be vol 49 (not 39)?
Thanks. read full comment

Comment on: Mann et al. Implementation Science, 7:6

Update: Acknowledgements (, 04 June 2012)

Our acknowledgments section was mistakenly not uploaded. It reads as follows:

The authors would like to thank the following people for their invaluable contributions to the work described in this paper. Mr. Daniel Edonyabo for programming the electronic health record tool. Mr. Lucas Romero and Mr. Diego Chiluisa for their help developing the study tools, recruiting participants and executing the study protocols. read full comment

Comment on: Mann et al. Implementation Science, 7:6

Consider a Federation National Societies (Lisa Simpson, 04 June 2012)

As the president and CEO of AcademyHealth, the premier, U.S. organization for health services research and those who use evidence to improve health and health care, I read your editorial of February 29, 2012 with great interest.... read full comment

Comment on: Wensing et al. Implementation Science, 7:10

About the use of GADS as outcome measure (Enric Aragones, 25 January 2012)

The Goldberg¿s Anxiety and Depression Scales (GADS) are heteroapplied questionnaires that were derived by latent trait analysis from a standardized psychiatric research interview. They were designed and calibrated to aid general practitioners and other non-psychiatrists in the better recognition of anxiety and depression... read full comment

Comment on: Tello-Bernabé et al. Implementation Science, 6:123

in support of KT training (David Phipps, 25 January 2012)

Having recently presented at a knowledge brokers forum in the UK there is international interest in capacity building for knowledge brokering, more than we usually do through individual peer sessions and one off workshops. As valuable as these are for supporting and sustaining knowledge brokering there is a need for accredited knowledge brokering training. 30 years into technology transfer that industry has established a series of accredited training courses for tech transfer. We need the same degree of rigour in training for knowledge brokering. The KTPC session described in the previous comment by Melanie Barwick has been accredited by Univ. Toronto. We need more KTPC across Canada read full comment

Comment on: Straus et al. Implementation Science, 6:127

CPD for KT in Canada (Melanie Barwick, 06 January 2012)

Interesting to learn how KT Canada is working to expand KT training in Canada. Similar efforts have been undertaken coast to coast since 2004, in KT training for health scientists through the Scientist Knowledge Translation Training course (966 people researchers trained to incorporate KT practices into their programs of research) and more recently, the Knowledge Translation Professional Certificate - targeted to KT practitioners There is great demand for supports in this area, and this work is very important for building KT capacity. read full comment

Comment on: Straus et al. Implementation Science, 6:127

Clear guidance for researchers is to be welcomed (Philip Preshaw, 17 August 2011)

I read the editorial by Eccles et al, "Requirements for ethics committee review for studies submitted to Implementation Science", with great... read full comment

Comment on: Eccles et al. Implementation Science, 6:32

Funding for this project (Elizabeth Staton, 17 August 2011)

This project was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: AHRQ - 5 R18 HS017886-03 PI: PACE, WILSON read full comment

Comment on: Folks et al. Implementation Science, 6:65

Communities of Practice: Development and Prospects in CLAHRC-NDL (Justine Schneider, 07 July 2011)

Roman Kislov, Gill Harvey and Kieran Walshe (6:64) draw attention to the fruitful application of the concept of communities of practice in Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs).... read full comment

Comment on: Kislov et al. Implementation Science, 6:64

More details about the audit and feedback system, please. (Sylvia Hysong, 27 April 2011)

The authors present an interesting protocol; and although the intervention of interest is the decision support system, not the audit... read full comment

Comment on: Luitjes et al. Implementation Science, 5:68

Disseminating research findings: What should universities do? (Christian Dagenais, 30 March 2011)

The question of what role researchers should play in the dissemination of research findings is crucial to promoting the use of such knowledge. However, there is relatively little data available on the manner in which researchers are or should be involved in these activities, and thus on how to address ¿deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge to routine clinical practice.¿ As such, this scoping review makes a significant contribution to the knowledge transfer (KT) field. Wilson and his colleagues conclude by suggesting that research funding agencies should make any grant conditional, in part, on applicants adopting a theoretically-informed approach to their KT... read full comment

Comment on: Wilson et al. Implementation Science, 5:91

Researchers shouldn't be the ones to have to translate knowledge (Lynne Garner, 17 August 2010)

As a US funder of medical research, and one that focuses on getting the benefit of research put into action, I agree with much of what Wilson, et al describe in their discussion of the survey’s findings. Funders need to be clearer about their knowledge translation expectations and create funding opportunities that mirror them. However, the overall implication that researchers must be in the forefront of the knowledge translation endeavor is misguided. University reward structures are focused on faculty members getting new grants and on reporting “high impact” findings, both of which impede translation activities. Funders - working with public health agencies, health care businesses and researchers - need to develop new translation pathways to increase the impact of... read full comment

Comment on: Wilson et al. Implementation Science, 5:61

Importance of reflective capacity (Donald Nease, 17 August 2010)

Excellent in depth work examining the challenges of delivering quality care for depression in primary care. The findings related to reflexive monitoring parallel our own and others' work in the US that has sought to increase reflective capacity to implement and sustain change in care processes.(1) It is worth noting the similarities despite the clear differences in how medical care is funded in our respective countries.

The suggestion regarding Balint groups as a means to introduce reflexive monitoring is an interesting one. Within the American Balint Society we are just beginning to examine this potential application, having piloted it once at a Society of Teachers of Family Medicine workshop. We too are intrigued by the possibilities for applying it within our own context... read full comment

Comment on: Gunn et al. Implementation Science, 5:62

Is rational choice a rational standard? (Paul Falzer, 06 July 2010)

The claim that humans are inherently lacking the capacity to make sound judgments on a consistent basis has been made cogently by Fischhoff, Howard, and Kahneman, among others. Perhaps the most compelling case was made by Descartes and became a foundation of modernity. One wonders how advocates of current dual process models of cognition could have arrived at their conclusions without beginning at the same place as Descartes and Bayes, and with the same purpose in mind – to demonstrate that humans are inherently lacking the capacity to exercise rational judgment.

Note that the claim of inveterate irrationality depends on its presumption. The circularity exemplifies a certain charm that compels our attention and turns us inside out, offers no solution and no hope of... read full comment

Comment on: McCaughey et al. Implementation Science, 5:39