Meet the Editor: An Interview with Lisa Saldana, our new Associate Editor for Implementation Science Communications
Published in Healthcare & Nursing, Sustainability, and Public Health
Lisa Saldana is the Director and Senior Research Scientist at Chestnut Health Systems’ Lighthouse Institute and Director for the Center for Implementation Science at Lighthouse Institute. She has a research emphasis on advancing the use of evidence-based practice in public serving systems. A clinical psychologist by training, she is an NIH-funded implementation scientist focused on the development, evaluation, and implementation of prevention-focused EBPs. Lisa has led a multidisciplinary team of researchers and together during their time at Oregon Social Learning Center they developed the Stages of Implementation Completion ®(SIC) and Cost of Implementing New Strategies (COINS) tools that have been widely adopted to measure, track, and facilitate implementation process, milestones, and resource use for different behavioral and physical healthcare programs worldwide. She serves as a mentor to many emerging scientists with an interest in implementation science and evidence-based practice and has the privilege of collaborating with investigators and community partners throughout the country on numerous federally funded projects.
The following is an interview between Elvin Geng, Editor-in-Chief of Implementation Science Communications, and Lisa.
Elvin: Thank you so much for joining the journal as an AE. The timing is crucial - we have had a surge in submissions and we need the kind of expertise that you bring to guide the journal as well as the field. On a personal level, I’m also very excited to work more closely with you because I have followed your work for years. You developed the Stages of Implementation Completion and COINS — tools that have shaped how the field measures and supports implementation. These are major contributions to the field. could I ask you to say a word or two about these, how they came out, and what has surprised you about how the research community has ended up using them?
Lisa: Thanks Elvin! I can’t tell you how excited I am to join this esteemed editorial board and team. Implementation Science Communications is one of my favorite journals and I’m delighted to support it during this period of massive growth. And congratulations to you and the editors for earning such an incredible initial impact score.
Thanks for asking about the SIC and COINS tools and I wish I could take credit for the initial idea of measuring implementation process, but this idea originated from one of the original implementation trials funded under NIH’s initial dissemination and implementation research in health initiative. The grant was awarded to Oregon Social Learning Center with Patti Chamberlain as the PI and Hendricks Brown was a Co-I. Hendricks had the original notion that passing of time and what you did with that time was important for understanding implementation. The gap we were trying to fill was significant – the study was a head-to-head trial comparing the effectiveness of two bundled implementation strategies, and we needed to determine if the strategies were actually being used, how they were being used, and if they ended in successful implementation. All things that are a given part of your original proposal now, but for those initial trials, we were trying to figure out what the plane was actually supposed to look like, while we were building it, and flying it.
I was at the right place at the right time, happened to have some measurement development skills, and was very privileged to be asked to lead this effort. I integrated my behavioral observation background and spent a lot of time grappling with how to operationalize processes. I also happened to have some (very minimal) training in economics and policy, and it was clear that as we observed implementation processes, that significant fiscal decisions were impacting implementation along the way. We, in turn, developed the COINS tool to be used alongside the SIC to capture the costs associated with the implementation process. While both were developed to help us observe our outcomes for that initial trial, they now are commonly used throughout the field which has been such a fun ride to get to collaborate with people all over the world and learn about the really cool innovations they are trying to move into practice but has also absolutely unexpected.
Elvin: As you step into the associate editor role at Implementation Science Communications, where do you see the biggest white spaces in the current literature? What kinds of manuscripts are you hoping to champion?
Lisa: This is probably not surprising, but I am very grounded in the practical and pragmatic side of implementation science and I would like to see the field move toward helping systems integrate and utilize the knowledge learned over the last couple of decades to create systems change and build sustainable infrastructures. I would like to see us move beyond the theoretical and apply what we have learned on a larger scale. Across the globe we are witnessing how vulnerable our healthcare and scientific infrastructures are with many systems being dismantled with rapid speed. During the period of rebuild, it would be wonderful to see more manuscripts providing examples of methods, strategies, and outcomes focused on using knowledge from the IS field to help create infrastructures that can exist and sustain within communities independent of external resources.
Elvin: If you had to name one conceptual or methodological shift you'd like to see the field make in the next five years, what would it be — and why?
Lisa: Great question. I would love to see rigorous designs developed that also take into consideration that real world partners do not work on the same timeline as research trials. This goes in both directions – partners who want to adopt an intervention but need more time than a particular design allows, and partners who need to implement a solution to an immediate need, now, and cannot wait for the study timeline. There are, of course, really cool variations of rollout designs emerging and it will be interesting to see how these methods evolve. And I am thrilled that “pacing” of implementation is gaining increased attention in the field, in part thanks to the special collection that ISC and IS are supporting.
There will always be a tension between the pace of science and real-world need, but I would love to see more innovation toward solving this gap.
Elvin: One of the things I like to ask is what your favorite paper has been recently in implementation science and why.
Lisa: Another great question. There is so much great work happening that it is hard to pick one, but related to your last question, I would have to say the recent article by Hendricks Brown and colleagues on rollout designs in Implementation Science, “What scientific inferences can be made with randomized implementation rollout trials.” I think this is a great example of a paper that challenges us to think beyond our typical effectiveness designs and to think about how we can leverage learnings across time from different cohorts that are on different implementation timelines. I appreciated how the authors laid out different methods that could be utilized to answer different questions. What really struck me though, was how they outlined the steps that are needed to maintain rigor for example, recommendations for when randomization of sites should occur under different designs. This seems simple, but it is anything but, and I found these insights really helpful as I think about our current and future trials.
Elvin: Can you tell us the last book you read, what it was about and why you liked it?
Lisa: I am biased, but my sister is an author and recently wrote a book, “What we remember will be saved.” It is a written documentary of the stories of refugees in the middle east who sustain their culture and values through their art and what they can literally bring with them on their backs. She brings a voice to their stories of preserving their heritage through food, song, textiles, dance and so forth. I really appreciated this book, not only because it was written by my sister, but because it provided a beautiful example of hope and the steps that people naturally take to sustain what is most valuable to them, even in the most unpredictable and challenging times.
Elvin: Anything else you would like us to know about you?
Lisa: Folks can say that I am a little pollyannaish, but I hope that glass half full perspective helps propel the Implementation Science field forward. I truly believe that our expertise is what is needed right now to help shape the direction of equitable and quality healthcare. I am excited to help support these advancement through my role with IS Communications!
📝 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.
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.
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
Please sign in or register for FREE
If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in