Table 1.

Some leading models of Implementation Science discussed in the text. Their Rationale and Method have been summerised using their own wording in order to demonstrate their epistemological and methodological commitments

1) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (Damschroder et al. 2009) Rationale: Designed to standardise implementation theory, "each [theory] is missing one or more key constructs included in other theories. [CFIR is] a comprehensive framework that consolidates constructs found in the broad array of published theories" (p2). CFIR synthesises implementation models into 5 domains. Method: Greenhalgh et al. 2004 was [their] "starting point for the CFIR. [They] used a snowball sampling approach to identify new articles through colleagues [...] and theories that cited Greenhalgh et al.'s synthesis, or that have been used in multiple published studies in health services research (e.g. PARIHS)" (p2).

2) Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations (Greenhalgh et al. 2004) Rationale: Aims to offer a way "to define and measure the diffusion of innovations in organisations" (p581). Provides a "basis across a wide range of literature" to explain the "spread" of ways in which innovation can be understood. Method: "To explore this large and heterogeneous literature, [they] developed a new technique, which [they] called meta-narrative review" (p583). Devised as a way to carry out a type of meta-synthesis of qualitative as well as quantitative literature.

3) Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) (May & Finch, 2009) Rationale: "Puts forwards a theory how and why things become, or don't become, routine and normal components of everyday work" (p535). The model "provides a set of sociological tools to understand and explain the social processes that frame the implementation of material practices" (p540). Proposes a theory of 5 components. Method: Revised over two iterations "from secondary analyses of multiple qualitative studies in health care settings". The most recent second iteration "focuses on general processes by which material practices come to be embedded in their social contexts [...]using as exemplars ethnographic and other studies of the development implementation, and evaluation of a tele-dermatology service" (p539).

4) The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) (Rycroft-Malone, 2004) Rationale: Conceptual framework developed to promote action. Depicts "successful research implementation as a function of the relationships among [3 elements]: evidence, context, and facilitation." (p298) Method: The concepts derive from "theoretical and retrospective analysis of 4 studies that had been undertaken by the Royal College of Nurses Institute" (p298). These were programmes run mostly by nurses to "help improve the quality of their care by setting clinical standards, introducing audit and quality improvement, and in changing patient services in several community hospitals in one health authority." (Kitson et al. p150)

5) Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) (Cane et al. 2012) Rationale: A framework developed "to simplify and integrate a plethora of behaviour change theories and make theory more accessible to, and usable by, other disciplines" (p2). Sorts organisational behaviour originally into 12 domains and 14 domains in the refined model. Method: Expert selection of "33 theories and 128 key theoretical constructs related to behaviour change and synthesis them into a single framework" (p2).