Implementation science infrastructure in U.S. academic institutions: a convergent mixed-methods study
5 affiliations
- 1Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine
- 2Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina
- 3Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University
- 4Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives, Duke University School of Medicine
- 5University of Michigan Medical School
Abstract
Background Interest in implementation science (IS) has grown rapidly in recent years, leading to the development of academic centers and programs across the United States (U.S.). Limited information exists regarding how these entities are structured, funded, and sustained. This study characterizes the infrastructure, funding models, service offerings, and organizational structures and practices of IS centers and programs within U.S. academic institutions. Methods We conducted a convergent mixed methods study using a structured web-based review and a REDCap survey. Targeted Google searches of .edu and .org domains were used to identify IS centers and programs based at U.S. academic medical and public health institutions. Forty-eight centers met the inclusion criteria after screening. Website data included institutional affiliation, leadership structure, focus areas, partnerships and service offerings. Program leaders from identified centers were invited to complete a survey examining funding sources, success metrics, workforce development, partnerships, and leadership succession. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and open-ended responses were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods. Findings were integrated during interpretation. Results The 48 centers and programs were distributed across all major U.S. regions, with 54.2% located at public institutions. Research combined with mentorship and/or teaching was the most common focus area (77.0%). Training (54.2%) and consultation (45.8%) were the most reported service offerings, whereas only 27.1% publicly described community engagement support. Among 12 of 13 survey respondents with complete funding data, grants were the most frequently reported funding source (83.3%), followed by institutional support (50.0%), with limited funding diversification. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings suggested that workforce development, mentorship, and partnerships were viewed as important strengths among survey participants, while sustainability challenges were linked to reliance on external funding, staffing constraints, and limited succession planning. Quantitative findings related to funding concentration and traditional success metrics were reinforced by qualitative themes describing Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) dependence, workforce challenges, and misalignment between academic incentives and long-term implementation impact. Conclusions Academic IS centers and programs play an important role in workforce development, mentorship, training, and implementation support but continue to rely substantially on external funding to support core activities. Findings highlight the need for diversified funding strategies, stronger institutional investments, proactive succession planning, and broader impact-oriented success metrics that better capture long-term implementation impact and systems change.
Related
- Identifying leverage points to sustain community-engaged research infrastructure in academic systems: a participatory systems science approach
- Small grants as capacity building for community engaged research infrastructure: a multi-site case study of research centers in minority institutions
- Implementation of Pharmacogenomics in Pediatric-Focused Institutions Within the Pharmacogenomics Global Research Network.
- Effects of 2025-2026 U.S. health and science policy changes on academic pulmonary and critical care medicine: an ASPIRE-PCCM prospective survey study
- Implementation science in global paediatric oncology: a scoping review protocol.
BibTeX
@article{mejia2026implementation,
title = {{Implementation science infrastructure in U.S. academic institutions: a convergent mixed-methods study}},
author = {Carolina Mejia and Megan M. Oakes and Zoe E. Waddell and Sahar Shibeika and India Rockett and Stephanie S. Sperry and John A. Fuller and Lesley A. Skalla and Connor Drake and Devon Check and Heather A. King and Leah L. Zullig},
journal = {Implementation Science Communications},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s43058-026-01046-2},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01046-2},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Implementation science infrastructure in U.S. academic institutions: a convergent mixed-methods study
AU - Carolina Mejia
AU - Megan M. Oakes
AU - Zoe E. Waddell
AU - Sahar Shibeika
AU - India Rockett
AU - Stephanie S. Sperry
AU - John A. Fuller
AU - Lesley A. Skalla
AU - Connor Drake
AU - Devon Check
AU - Heather A. King
AU - Leah L. Zullig
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - Implementation Science Communications
DO - 10.1186/s43058-026-01046-2
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01046-2
AB - Background Interest in implementation science (IS) has grown rapidly in recent years, leading to the development of academic centers and programs across the United States (U.S.). Limited information exists regarding how these entities are structured, funded, and sustained. This study characterizes the infrastructure, funding models, service offerings, and organizational structures and practices of IS centers and programs within U.S. academic institutions. Methods We conducted a convergent mixed methods study using a structured web-based review and a REDCap survey. Targeted Google searches of .edu and .org domains were used to identify IS centers and programs based at U.S. academic medical and public health institutions. Forty-eight centers met the inclusion criteria after screening. Website data included institutional affiliation, leadership structure, focus areas, partnerships and service offerings. Program leaders from identified centers were invited to complete a survey examining funding sources, success metrics, workforce development, partnerships, and leadership succession. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and open-ended responses were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods. Findings were integrated during interpretation. Results The 48 centers and programs were distributed across all major U.S. regions, with 54.2% located at public institutions. Research combined with mentorship and/or teaching was the most common focus area (77.0%). Training (54.2%) and consultation (45.8%) were the most reported service offerings, whereas only 27.1% publicly described community engagement support. Among 12 of 13 survey respondents with complete funding data, grants were the most frequently reported funding source (83.3%), followed by institutional support (50.0%), with limited funding diversification. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings suggested that workforce development, mentorship, and partnerships were viewed as important strengths among survey participants, while sustainability challenges were linked to reliance on external funding, staffing constraints, and limited succession planning. Quantitative findings related to funding concentration and traditional success metrics were reinforced by qualitative themes describing Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) dependence, workforce challenges, and misalignment between academic incentives and long-term implementation impact. Conclusions Academic IS centers and programs play an important role in workforce development, mentorship, training, and implementation support but continue to rely substantially on external funding to support core activities. Findings highlight the need for diversified funding strategies, stronger institutional investments, proactive succession planning, and broader impact-oriented success metrics that better capture long-term implementation impact and systems change.
SN - 2662-2211
ER -