Meet the Editor: A Conversation with Erika Crable, our new Deputy Editor for Implementation Science Communications
Published in Healthcare & Nursing, Sustainability, and Public Health
Over the past several years, Implementation Science Communications has seen a very substantial increase in submissions. This is exciting and reflects the growth and maturation of implementation science, but it also creates new responsibilities for the journal. To accommodate this volume while maintaining both efficiency and scientific rigor, we need more hands on deck, particularly for the initial assessment and triage of submissions.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
Before joining Springer Nature in 2021, Tamara completed an MBio in Biomedical Sciences at the University of Warwick and now manages a portfolio of fully open access journals focused on women's health and implementation science. In addition, she chairs the Springer Nature SDG3 (Good Health and Well-Being) working group.
Follow the Topic
-
Implementation Science Communications
An official companion journal to Implementation Science and a forum to publish research relevant to the systematic study of approaches to foster uptake of evidence based practices and policies that affect health care delivery and health outcomes, in clinical, organizational, or policy contexts.
📢 Introducing: # Mental Health
Mental Health is a Topic created to increase visibility and impact of research in this area and facilitate exchange amongst researchers.
Continue reading announcementRelated Collections
With Collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.
Learning From the Past and Shaping the Future
Implementation Science has published 2,197 papers since its inception in 2006 (as of May 27, 2026). Implementation Science Communications has published 938 papers since it began in 2019 (also as of May 27, 2026). In addition to papers published in these two journals, a larger number of papers focusing on implementation science in health care have been published in other journals over the last 20 years, conservatively around 22,300. This is based on a PubMed search using a specific search string[1], conducted on May 27, 2026. It is important to note that landmark papers in the field were published before 2006. Our purpose in marking this anniversary is to reflect on the field as a whole.
While much of the growth in the literature has come from high-income countries, there has been an increase in the number and scope of papers from lower and middle-income countries, fueling the overall growth.
Arguably, the growth in the literature and underlying research studies shows that the science and practice of implementation have moved from the periphery to mainstream health research. We are interested in papers that document and analyze the change over the last couple of decades—although the history of the field prior to 2006 is also of interest—and propose how this shapes the future of the field. This may be based on bibliographic or citation analysis, surveys among researchers, or other sources. Papers that only review the past, without analysis and future direction, will not be seen as responding to this call.
Examples of topics include, but are not limited to:
- Content analysis or systematic reviews of empirical publications from Implementation Science and/or Implementation Science Communications
- Content analysis of editorials and research agenda-setting articles from both journals, including papers focusing on implementation science published in other journals
- Bibliographic/citation analysis of publications over the 20 years of IS, including other papers published in other journals
- Analyses of geographic, disciplinary, authorship, funding, or institutional patterns in implementation science
Submissions should include critical interpretive analysis of existing literature and provide new insights, ideas, and thoughts from reflection on the existing literature.
This Collection welcomes submissions of a range of article types. Should you wish to submit to this Collection, please read the submission guidelines of the journal you are submitting to, i.e., Implementation Science or Implementation Science Communications, to confirm that the type is accepted by the journal you are submitting to.
Articles for this Collection should be submitted via our submission systems in Implementation Science or Implementation Science Communications. During the submission process, you will be asked whether you are submitting to a Collection. Please select "Learning From the Past and Shaping the Future" from the dropdown menu.
Articles will undergo the standard peer-review process of the journal in which they are considered, Implementation Science or Implementation Science Communications, and are subject to all of the journal’s standard policies. Articles will be added to the Collection as they are published.
The Editors have no competing interests with the submissions that they handle through the peer-review process. The peer review of any submissions for which the Editors have competing interests is handled by another Editorial Board Member who has no competing interests.
[1] ("Implementation Science"[Mesh] OR "implementation science"[tiab] OR "implementation research"[tiab] OR "dissemination and implementation"[tiab] OR "translation science"[tiab] OR "knowledge translation"[tiab]) AND 2006:2026[dp]
Publishing Model: Open Access
Deadline: Mar 09, 2027
Breaking Frameworks: Revisiting, Extending, Integrating, and Theorizing Implementation Frameworks
The field of implementation science has amassed a large number of frameworks3,4,5. These are sometimes also called models, but because the term “model” is used in many other contexts in research, we will use the term “framework.” While many of these frameworks express a goal of supporting research in the implementation of evidence-based practices and programs, researchers and especially new entrants to the field continue to express confusion and uncertainty about how to use existing frameworks and which to use for what purposes. New frameworks are often developed without clarity about how they fit within the existing corpus of frameworks.
Despite the large number of frameworks 4, their use often reflects a lack of deep understanding of the content of the frameworks. Implementation researchers often describe frustration with existing frameworks while continuing to use them. A major issue is that once published in a peer-reviewed venue, there is no clear path to suggest changes or updates to the frameworks. A few, such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)6, the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework7,8, and the RE-AIM framework9, have been updated through processes determined by a relatively small group of researchers10; others remain essentially fixed as they were published, or updated once but not again11,12. This can lead to reification of the frameworks in their original form. These issues may constitute a major “sticking point” for advancing the science of implementation, as well as contributing to complexity for implementation practitioners who use frameworks as tools developed through the science. Emerging global health priorities, including health equity, structural racism, coloniality, climate and planetary health, digital transformation, and policy implementation, raise questions about whether existing frameworks adequately capture power, history, resource constraints, political economy, community agency, and cross-setting adaptation13. The increased geographic scope of published studies adds to concerns about whether theories and frameworks current in the literature support the broader scope.
We also note the importance of understanding the function of existing frameworks, most clearly addressed in the seminal 2015 paper by Nilsen describing an initial taxonomy of theories, models, and frameworks in implementation science5. We note that this paper is now over a decade old. Proposing additional taxonomic categories of frameworks, models, and theories is an important step yet to be taken.
This background informs this collection proposal. We are calling for manuscripts to address the issues, which may include methods (what methods can be used to update or extend existing frameworks), perspective or commentary manuscripts (why is this important), and empirical papers offering new insights, updates, and extensions of existing frameworks. We would also welcome papers that explicitly focus on theorizing based on existing frameworks, focusing on prediction and explanation rather than description14. However, manuscripts proposing new frameworks will be considered only if they clearly demonstrate how the proposed contribution builds on, revises, synthesizes, tests, or challenges existing frameworks, and why a new framework or a substantial extension is necessary. The existing body of frameworks and models within implementation science and practice constitutes an important catalog of knowledge. Our goal is to build on that existing knowledge.
Examples of topics include, but are not limited to:
- Innovative papers that develop new substantive theories or significant theoretical extensions to existing theories
- Methods for classifying and categorizing existing frameworks
- Proposing new domains and constructs for existing determinant frameworks
- Synthesizing across existing process frameworks to describe common elements and areas of departure
- Practical guidance on how to use existing tools such as the “Assess the Dissemination and Implementation Models Webtool” or useful new tools and approaches to help people select and use existing frameworks (these are likely to be assessed for Implementation Science Communications rather than Implementation Science)
This Collection welcomes submissions of a range of article types. Should you wish to submit to this Collection, please read the submission guidelines of the journal you are submitting to, i.e., Implementation Science or Implementation Science Communications, to confirm that the type is accepted by the journal you are submitting to.
Articles for this Collection should be submitted via our submission systems in Implementation Science or Implementation Science Communications. During the submission process, you will be asked whether you are submitting to a Collection. Please select "Breaking Frameworks: Revisiting, Extending, Integrating, and Theorizing Implementation Frameworks" from the dropdown menu.
Articles will undergo the standard peer review process of the journal in which they are considered, Implementation Science or Implementation Science Communications, and are subject to all of the journal’s standard policies. Articles will be added to the Collection as they are published.
The Editors have no competing interests with the submissions that they handle through the peer-review process. The peer review of any submissions for which the Editors have competing interests is handled by another Editorial Board Member who has no competing interests.
Publishing Model: Open Access
Deadline: Mar 09, 2027
