Professor Crable is one of our longstanding Associate Editors and has agreed to serve as Deputy Editor for the next two years. In this role, she will work closely with the Editors-in-Chief to:
- Conduct initial assessment and triage of submissions.
- Help shepherd the strategic direction of the journal.
- Identify and highlight particularly important papers and emerging directions in the field.
- Work closely with Associate Editors and the Editorial Board.
- Strengthen processes that allow us to handle manuscripts efficiently while maintaining scientific rigor.
- Help ensure that the journal is not simply processing papers but actively helping to advance the science of implementation.
We thought the best way to introduce her in this new role would be to learn a little more about her, how she came to implementation science, where she thinks the field is headed, and what she hopes to accomplish at the journal.
The following is a conversation between Editor-in-Chief Prof Elvin Geng and Deputy Editor Prof Erika Crable.
Elvin: First, tell us a little about yourself. I know that you live in Southern California. I am from California myself, although I grew up in Northern California. Despite the longstanding NorCal–SoCal rivalry, I have to admit that California as a whole is a pretty wonderful place, and there are many things about it that I miss deeply—the ocean, the sunshine, the geography, and the people. Where did you grow up? What was your training path? How did your career evolve? And, perhaps most importantly for this audience, how did you find your way into implementation science?
Erika: I agree – California is a gorgeous place. I grew up in and around Annapolis, MD and Washington, DC, which are both magical in their own ways. Growing up, I spent a lot of time on the water – kayaking, swimming, and sailing. I love that I get to be on the water pretty much year-round in Southern California. I also have to say that my biggest, pleasant surprise as a transplant out here is that people in Los Angeles are very nice.
Looking back, my training path seems more linear than it felt along the way. I did my undergraduate degree at American University in DC, double majoring in anthropology and journalism while working at the local NPR station! That was a bit of a weird combination, but I think both disciplines taught me how to structure my curiosity about how people experience the world. My first research assistant roles were on studies aiming to improve HIV and substance use health outcomes for individuals who were incarcerated or under community supervision. I spent a lot of time getting frustrated by carceral systems and health insurers. I had great mentors who encouraged me to enroll in graduate school. I earned an MPH and then a PhD in Health Services Research at Boston University. I worked full-time throughout my PhD – first as a policy consultant for federal agencies (mostly on CMS, SAMHSA, ASPE contracts). I took the one implementation science elective course available in my PhD program and immediately thought: ‘this is the kind of research I want to do’, and ‘why aren’t there more policy applications of implementation science approaches?’ An evidence-informed policy is just words on paper unless there are meaningful dissemination and implementation strategies helping to turn that policy into high- quality services people can actually use.
I started working at the Evans Center for Implementation and Improvement Science at Boston University later in my doctorate. We did D&I project consults, and I used each of those meetings as an opportunity to try out a new implementation science theory, model, or framework (TMF). CFIR, PRISM, EPIS… I literally printed the Tabak et al. article and went line by line trying out every TMF listed for different projects so that I could learn what those TMF were doing and when they were more or less helpful. You could say that meaningful, applied use of theory is a bit of a passion for me! That job led to working on the implementation science core of the HEALing Communities Study – which was an awesome opportunity to learn and collaborate with amazing D&I researchers across four institutions. In the absence of more formal coursework in D&I, I made it a point to read every edition of Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications ‘cover to cover’, so to speak, for literally a 5-6 year period. That ‘self-directed’ reading plan taught me so much about theory, implementation strategies, and measures. It helped me conceptualize and execute a dissertation investigating pre- and active implementation of an evidence-informed policy change in state Medicaid programs. I did an amazing post-doc working with Dr. Greg Aarons who has become an incredible mentor and colleague. Completing the Implementation Research Institute fellowship and gaining mentorship from that cadre of D&I scientists was a huge boost to my training and professional growth. I still try to read as much as possible across D&I journals. Having an understanding of where the field started, and how it’s evolving helps me try to formulate policy-relevant D&I questions and methods innovations.
Elvin: Most of us in implementation science have another intellectual home as well. That is to say we also work within particular substantive areas, populations, health systems, or clinical problems. What is your substantive area of research? What are the problems that motivate your work? How has working on those problems shaped the way that you think about implementation science?
Erika: I’ve always felt like I have ‘round peg, square hole problems’, meaning I’ve been more interdisciplinary and don’t quite fit into any one space. If I had to choose, I think addiction health services research is my other home. My research investigates how policy structures and decision-making processes impact access to and quality of HIV and substance use treatment services, and harm reduction services for safety net populations. I can’t believe that in 2026, low-barrier, on-demand substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is not widely available. I cannot believe that a federal policy mandate (i.e. SUPPORT Act) is not sufficiently enforced to ensure access to lifesaving, medications for opioid use disorder treatments for all Medicaid members living with an opioid use disorder. We know pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can lower your risk of acquiring HIV, but we have major access gaps for women and people living in the southern United States. There are no shortage of multi-level evidence use gaps driving my dissemination and implementation science work.
Elvin: Implementation science has developed remarkably quickly over the past decade or two. I think it’s a time in the development of the field that has a lot of opportunity but also some pitfalls. We now have a substantial literature, established journals, widely used theories and frameworks, increasingly sophisticated methods, and a large international community. What has implementation science gotten right—and what have we gotten wrong? What has the field contributed that would genuinely be missing if implementation science had never developed? On the other hand, what do you regard as our greatest shortcoming?
Erika: This is such a hard question! But I love the opportunity to be reflexive. It’s incredible how much the field of D&I has advanced in the last two decades. I remember when the D&I conference was on the smaller side; now it’s huge! I love that so many people want to use D&I concepts and approaches in their work. With our growth, regular reflection will help ensure that the science of D&I continues to build rather than stagnating.
Overall, the field has really helped to explain how organizational processes, structures, and leaders influence adoption of evidence-based practices. The field also made amazing advances in ensuring external validity and transferability of strategies and outcomes. A lot of that was achieved through the creation of useful taxonomies of implementation strategies (e.g., ERIC) and outcomes. A shortcoming would be to only use those existing implementation strategies and outcomes – the first ones in the field – to structure all work going forward. We need to keep advancing new types of implementation strategies and implementation outcomes.
Elvin: A journal should reflect its field, but I think it should also help shape it. I think you are an opinion leader in the field and I’m hoping that this role will help us harness your insights and energies even more! One of the opportunities that comes with joining the senior editorial team is the ability to think about what we should be publishing and what conversations we should be encouraging. Are there particular directions that you would like to see Implementation Science Communications pursue? Are there types of papers or scientific questions that you think we should be encouraging more actively?
Erika: Yes, this is a tremendous opportunity, and I have a few ideas! First, we have wide citation of D&I theories, models, and frameworks – but superficial use will stagnate advancements in the science, specifically our understanding of what kinds of dissemination strategies or implementation strategies are needed, in what processes, and to activate which mechanisms. I want to see the field continue to test relationships between the constructs, processes and outcomes posited in our D&I theories. Second, I would love to see more investigations into implementation across cross-sector settings. Several factors can shape how individuals rely on multiple service sectors to piecemeal health and wellbeing. Implementation of evidence-based practices often requires coordinating, trust building, and resource sharing processes between health, law enforcement, social services, housing, and nutrition services. What implementation strategies work best to achieve cross-sector adoption or reach of evidence-based practices? Third, I don’t want to forget about the ‘D’ in D&I. I want us to start asking more dissemination science questions and advancing how we test dissemination strategies. We have a lot to learn and test from other disciplines in that space. Finally, I would love to see more advancements in policy focused D&I. The strategies and outcomes that the field developed for provider teams and organizational level implementation efforts often don’t make sense for policy actors like staff in health departments, insurance companies, and others involved in Big P and little p policy decisions. We need more validated tools here – not just expert recommendations based in the literature, but empirically tested strategies and measures.
Elvin: Thank you so much for talking to us. I’m looking forward to working together. And looking forward to the extra hands on deck as we try to steer this very large ship.
📝 Explore the journal and submit your manuscript.
📢Sign up to receive article alerts from Implementation Science Communications