Meet the Editor: An Interview with Bo Kim, our new Associate Editor for Implementation Science Communications
Published in Healthcare & Nursing, Social Sciences, and Sustainability
Bo Kim, Ph.D., is an investigator at the Center for Health Optimization and Implementation Research (CHOIR) at the VA Boston Healthcare System and an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. She serves as multiple principal investigator of the VA Behavioral Health and Bridge Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) Programs. Dr. Kim’s research focuses on improving the quality and sustainability of health and related services through implementation science. Her work emphasizes multi-level implementation strategies, implementation mechanisms, and mixed-methods evaluation to advance the uptake and sustainment of evidence-based practices in complex health systems. She conducts research across areas including behavioral health care, legal and social services addressing social determinants of health, and quality improvement initiatives within learning health systems. Drawing on approaches from systems science and health systems engineering, her work aims to strengthen service delivery and health outcomes for Veterans and other underserved populations.
The following is an interview between Elvin Geng and Roman Xu, Editors-in-Chief of Implementation Science Communications, and Bo.
Elvin: Bo, thank you so much for joining the journal as an AE! Your work has shaped how this field thinks about measurement and support for implementation in fundamental ways. You advanced Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS) methodology for example — which is a really innovative approach to cross-case analysis that lets researchers draw structured comparisons across complex implementation contexts.
Roman: We would love for you to say a word or two about MMCS: what gap were you trying to solve when you developed it, and what has surprised you about how the research community has ended up using it?
Bo: The Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS) method grew out of a challenge many implementation researchers face when studying programs across multiple sites. Case studies allow us to understand local context deeply, but they don’t always provide a clear structure for learning systematically across sites.
MMCS was designed to support what I like to call structured cross-site learning. The matrixed approach aims to preserve the richness of individual cases while organizing insights across sites and analytic dimensions so researchers can identify patterns in how implementation unfolds.
More broadly, the approach hopes to reflect a methodological need in the field: tools that allow us to balance contextual depth with systematic comparison across complex implementation settings. What has been most rewarding is seeing researchers adapt the method beyond its original context – for example, using it to facilitate cross-site learning in learning health systems and generate insights that travel across diverse implementation environments.
Elvin: I noted that you are currently serving as Board President of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC). SIRC plays such an important connective role in our field. What drew you to that leadership, and what are you hoping to move the needle on during your tenure?
Bo: One of the things that makes SIRC special is that it intentionally brings together people working across the entire evidence-to-practice continuum – including and beyond researchers, practitioners, health system leaders, and trainees. Implementation science is inherently collaborative, and SIRC has played an important role in building that shared intellectual community.
During my tenure, one priority has been strengthening SIRC as a space where different parts of the implementation ecosystem can learn from one another. This includes supporting initiatives that highlight emerging areas of the field, expanding opportunities for trainees and early-career scholars, and building infrastructure that allows implementation researchers and practitioners to collaborate more effectively.
I’m particularly excited about efforts that foster conversations around implementation in complex service ecosystems, including cross-sector work that spans health care, social services, and community systems.
Roman: As you step into the associate editor role at ISC, where do you see the biggest white spaces in the current literature? What kinds of manuscripts are you hoping to champion?
Bo: One area where I see substantial opportunity is research that examines implementation across service sectors, not just within a single health system. Increasingly, interventions that influence health outcomes involve collaborations among and beyond health care organizations, social services, housing programs, and legal services.
I often think of this emerging area as cross-sector implementation science. Many drivers of health, such as housing instability or economic insecurity, sit outside the traditional boundaries of health care, yet most of our implementation frameworks still focus primarily within health systems.
I would be especially excited to see manuscripts that examine how implementation unfolds within these interconnected service ecosystems and how cross-sector partnerships can support more equitable outcomes for underserved populations.
Elvin: If you had to name one conceptual or methodological shift you would like to see the field make in the next five years, what would it be — and why?
Bo: One shift I would love to see is deeper integration between implementation science and systems thinking. Many of the interventions we study operate within complex service ecosystems involving multiple organizations, policies, and funding streams.
Implementation studies often focus on individual programs or interventions, but understanding how those efforts interact with broader systems is increasingly important. Approaches drawn from systems science and engineering can help us examine feedback loops, cross-sector dynamics, and unintended consequences that might otherwise remain invisible.
Advancing this kind of systems-informed implementation research could help the field generate insights that are not only scientifically rigorous but also more actionable for leaders working to improve complex service systems.
Roman: What is a paper you have read recently in implementation science that excited you, and why?
Bo: A recent paper that I found particularly exciting is the Measurement Roadmap article by Martinez and colleagues (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43477-025-00189-z).
One persistent challenge in implementation science is that strong measurement is essential for learning from implementation efforts, yet selecting appropriate measures can be surprisingly difficult for practitioners. The Measurement Roadmap provides a practical guide that helps implementation teams navigate that process – from identifying relevant theoretical constructs to evaluating the psychometric and pragmatic qualities of measures.
What I especially appreciate about the paper is its emphasis on making implementation science more usable for real-world teams. That focus on practical decision-making resonates strongly with efforts to support learning health systems and structured cross-site learning.
Elvin: Anything else you would like us to know about you?
Bo: One thing people may not know about me is that I’m a big animal enthusiast – I’ve always enjoyed learning about wildlife and the ecosystems animals inhabit. It’s something that reminds me how interconnected different parts of a system can be.
In many ways, that perspective carries over into how I think about implementation science. The interventions we study don’t operate in isolation; they function within complex service ecosystems involving and not limited to health systems, community organizations, and social service providers.
Going forward, I intend for my work to increasingly focus on understanding how implementation unfolds within these interconnected environments, particularly when collaborations span multiple sectors such as health care, social services, and community systems.
Ultimately, I’m excited about a future where implementation science helps complex systems learn – across sites, across sectors, and across disciplines – how to better support the people they serve.
📝 Explore the journal and submit your manuscript.
📢Sign up to receive article alerts from Implementation Science Communications
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.
What are SDG Topics?
An introduction to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Topics and their role in highlighting sustainable development research.
Continue reading announcementRelated Collections
With Collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.
Advancing the Science and Metrics on the Pace of Implementation
The persistent 17-year span between discovery and application of evidence in practice has been a rallying cry for implementation science. That frequently quoted time period often implies that implementation needs to occur faster. But what do we really know about the time required to implement new evidence-based practices into routine settings of care. Does implementation take 17 years? Is implementation too slow? Can it be accelerated? Or, does a slower pace of implementing new evidence-based innovations serve a critical function? In many cases—pandemics, health inequities, urgent social crises—pressing needs demand timely implementation of rapidly accruing evidence to reduce morbidity and mortality. Yet many central tenets of implementation, such as trust, constituent inclusion, and adaptation, take time and may require a slow pace to ensure acceptability and sustained uptake.
To date, little attention and scant data address the pace of implementation. Speed is a rarely studied or reported metric in implementation science. Few in the field can answer the question, “how long does implementation take?” Answering that question requires data on how long various implementation phases take, or how long it takes to achieve implementation outcomes such as fidelity, adoption, and sustainment. Importantly, we lack good data on how different implementation strategies may influence the amount of time to achieve given outcomes.
To advance knowledge about how long implementation takes and how long it “should optimally” take, this collection seeks to stimulate the publication of papers that can advance the measurement of implementation speed, along with the systematic study of influences on and impacts of speed across diverse contexts, to more adequately respond to emerging health crises and benefit from emerging health innovations for practice and policy. In particular, we welcome submissions on 1) methodological papers that facilitate development, specification, and reporting on metrics of speed, and 2) data-based research (descriptive or inferential) that reports on implementation speed metrics, contextual factors and/or active strategies that affect speed, or the effects of implementation speed on important outcomes in various contexts.
Areas of interest include but are not limited to:
- Data based papers documenting pace of moving through various implementation phases, and identifying factors (e.g., implementation context, process, strategies) that affect pace of implementation (e.g., accelerators and inhibitors)
- Data based papers from multi-site, including multi-national, studies comparing pace of innovation adoption, implementation, and sustainment across various contexts
- Data based papers reporting time to implementation in the face of urgent social conditions (e.g., climate change, disaster relief) Papers on how to accelerate time to delivery of treatment discoveries for specific health conditions (e.g., cancer, infectious disease, suicidality, opioid epidemic)
- Data based papers on the timeliness of policy implementation, including factors influencing the time from data synthesis to policy recommendation, and from policy recommendation to implementation
- Span of time needed to: achieve partner collaboration, including global health partnerships adapt interventions to make them more feasible, usable, or acceptable achieve specific implementation outcomes (e.g., adoption, fidelity, scale-up, sustainment) de-implement harmful or low-value innovations, or to identify failed implementation efforts
- Effect of implementation pace on attainment of key outcomes such as constituent engagement, intervention acceptability or sustainability, health equity, or other evidence of clinical, community, economic, and/or policy benefits.
- Papers addressing the interplay between pace and health equity, speed and sustainability, and other considerations that impact decision-making on implementation
- Methodological pieces that advance designs for testing speed or metrics for capturing the pace of implementation
This Collection welcomes submission 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 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 "Advancing the Science and Metrics on the Pace of Implementation" from the dropdown menu.
Articles will undergo the standard peer-review process of the journal they are considered in 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 which 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.
This Collection is organized by:
- Gila Neta, PhD, MPP, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
- Enola Proctor, PhD, Washington University in St. Louis, United States
- Alex Ramsey, PhD, Washington University in St. Louis, United States
Publishing Model: Open Access
Deadline: Jun 30, 2026
Please sign in or register for FREE
If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in