The impact that an implementation researcher strives for may be different from the effects desired by practitioners or policy developers. Funders may understand beneficial changes to the community in one way, and the community may view these changes differently. Submissions under this topic focus on impact, outcomes, and effects, and ways to create agreement on relevant impact agendas when diverse and opposing interests and world views are involved. We also welcome submissions on measuring impact creatively and pragmatically, including political and economic impact.

In recent years, equity and inclusion have been among the most central points of attention in implementation science. North American political and societal developments have influenced much of this debate, whereas European contributions played a less prominent role. Submissions under this topic present European perspectives on equity and inclusion, discuss what these concepts mean in the context of European countries, explore how unintended consequences of implementation research and practice might widen inequalities, and specify how the field can contribute to overcoming disparities.

“It’s complex!” appears to have become an often-repeated mantra when explaining why implementation does not deliver on its promise to improve practice or policy. This begs the question of how to understand and navigate this complexity better. Submissions under this topic showcase implementation research and practice that demonstrate exactly that and may include novel empirical findings, methods, models, tools, and other innovations to tackle the age of complexity.

Submissions under this topic focus on how researchers, practitioners, and policy developers partner around evidence production and use, overcome their differences, create shared understandings, and collaborate for better implementation. Presentations that focus on the challenges and dilemmas involved in these efforts, including examples of collaborative failures, are also welcome, as are presentations shedding light on the role of funders and intermediaries.

Policy has always played a relatively minor role in implementation science when compared with programs and practices. This appears to be changing, reflected in a greater appetite for conceptualizing and understanding this role in the field. However, integrating policy-informed thinking in implementation research and practice is not easy, requiring insights into social sciences and the realities of boots-on-the-ground policymaking. Submissions under this topic shed light on the realities of policy implementation and efforts to create stronger links between policymakers and implementation researchers for the benefit of implementation practice.

Sustaining and scaling implementation science and practice for the long term remains daunting for research, policy, and funding as well as educational institutions with a stake in the discipline. Infrastructure such as implementation science and/or practice education programs, roles and career pathways, professional networks, and funding streams are capacity-building-blocks that are only just emerging, especially in European countries. Submissions under this topic present and discuss examples of this development toward greater implementation capacity, the gaps that still exist in this infrastructure, and ways to close them.

Successfully walking the tightrope between scientific rigor and real-world pragmatism often means adapting scientific approaches, study designs, and scientific methods to the needs of practitioners and policy makers. Rapid reviews are one example of this type of innovation. Submissions under this topic illustrate the application of such tools while highlighting their strengths and limitations, detail the contextual conditions of effectiveness, and examine new solutions to meet under-recognized requirements.