Table 1.

Key features of widely used implementation science frameworks or theories

Implementation framework or theory	Nilsen [24] classification	Constructs influencing implementation	Case stud(ies)
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) www.cfirguide.org [34, 35]	Determinant framework: categorizes implementation barriers/enablers	Characteristics of intervention or practice (e.g., evidence, complexity, cost) Outer setting (e.g., patient needs, policies) Inner setting (e.g., organization/clinic characteristics, culture, implementation climate) Characteristics of individuals (e.g., clinician knowledge, self-efficacy) Implementation process (e.g., engaging, evaluating)	Ahmed et al. [30]: implementing ePROMs in a pain network van Oers et al. [32]: implementing ePROMs in multiple pediatric and adult health clinics Manalili and Santana [33]: implementing ePREMs for quality improvement in primary care
Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) [36–38]	Determinant framework: categorizes implementation barriers/enablers	Factors Influencing Clinician Behavior Change, e.g.: Knowledge, skills Professional role/identity Beliefs about capabilities Beliefs about consequences Reinforcement Intentions/goals Environmental context and resources Social influence Memory, attention, decision influences Behavioral regulation	Ahmed et al. [30]: implementing ePROMs in a chronic pain network
Integrated framework for Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) [39–42]	Determinant framework: categorizes implementation barriers/enablers	Successful implementation formula = Facn(I + R + C) Fac = facilitation Person or organization assigned to do work of facilitation (implementation support) I = innovation Characteristics of innovation Degree of fit with existing practice and values Usability Relative advantage Trialability/observable results R = recipients Clinical experiences/perceptions Patient experiences, needs, preferences C = context Leadership support Culture, receptivity to change Evaluation capabilities	Roberts et al. [31]: implementing paper and electronic PROMs in a medical oncology outpatient department
Knowledge to Action (KTA) www.kt.canada.org [43, 44]	Process model: describes practical steps in translating research to practice	Knowledge creation phases: Knowledge inquiry Knowledge synthesis Create knowledge tools Action phases: Determine the know/do gap Adapt knowledge to local context Assess barriers/facilitators to use Select, tailor, implement Monitor knowledge use Evaluate outcomes Sustain knowledge use	Manalili and Santana [33]: implementing ePREMs for quality improvement in primary care
Normalization Process Theory (NPT) www.normalizationprocess.org [45, 46]	Implementation theory: specifies causal mechanisms	Coherence/sense-making (what is the work?) Cognitive participation (who does the work?) Collective action (how do people work together to get the work done?) Reflexive monitoring (how are the effects of the work understood?)	Manalili and Santana [33]: implementing ePREMs for quality improvement in primary care

PROM paper or electronic patient-reported outcome measure, ePROM electronic patient-reported outcome measure, and ePREM electronic patient-reported experience measure