Conceptual and Methodological Review Grants

As a rapidly developing field, implementation science presents numerous opportunities for conceptual and methodological advancements. Fundamental conceptual and methodological questions remain regarding the best ways to understand implementation context, adapt effective interventions, develop and evaluate dissemination and implementation strategies, and synthesize evidence in implementation science.

Many of these questions will require the development or application of novel theoretical perspectives, data collection methods, research designs, and analytic techniques. However, research funding is often awarded to address research questions that are primarily applied (e.g., improving the implementation of an evidence-based intervention in the service of improving public health outcomes), which can leave core conceptual and methodological questions unanswered.

To bridge this gap, the Center for Dissemination and Implementation offers Conceptual and Methodological (CAM) Review Grants as a funding mechanism to encourage WashU investigators to enhance conceptual and methodological understanding through the conduct of scoping, systematic, or other review methods.

While reviews that aim to simply describe the use of existing theories, frameworks, designs, or methodological approaches can be useful, we are particularly interested in reviews that are integrative and advance new perspectives and approaches. Thus, some reviews may be much less rigidly structured, taking the form of a conceptual paper consistent with those found in the Annual Review of Public Health or in implementation science debate papers. View examples of this under the Illustrative examples section of this webpage.

CAM grants can fund up to $20,000 for a 12-month award.

Funding can support investigator time, research assistants, conference expenses, or other costs of reviews that lead to an original perspective or insight for implementation science. A cost is adequately documented if it is supported by accounting records and source documentation, such as purchase orders, vouchers, invoices, payroll allocation reports, payroll summaries, timesheets, etc.

This opportunity is open to WashU researchers at the post-doctorate or faculty level. We welcome teams or individual investigators.  

Applications are due by August 15, 2023 at 11:59 p.m. CST. Award decisions will be made by September 15, 2023, for an award period from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024.

To apply, applicants should submit a CV or biosketch, budget, and two-page concept paper to dandi@wustl.edu. The concept paper should outline:

1. The conceptual or methodological gap, how it has impeded progress in implementation science, and how the proposed work will address that gap
2. The specific review method(s) that will be used
3. A detailed timeline
4. Implications and next steps for the work, including plans for future studies, funding, and dissemination efforts that would allow the findings to be integrated into implementation research studies and capacity building efforts.

Applications will be reviewed and scored based on the significance and innovation of the conceptual and/or methodological topic proposed, the appropriateness and rigor of the review methods, and the feasibility of completing the review within the 12-month award period.

Awardees will be expected to present their findings in a one-day retreat in October of 2024, where they can engage with other awardees and faculty who will work to sharpen the contributions prior to publication.

Awardees will also be asked to submit a brief six month progress report.

While far from exhaustive and not intended to constrain creativity, the following are examples of reviews that would be consistent with this call for proposals:

• Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., & Farahnak, L. R. (2014). Aligning leadership across systems and organizations to develop a strategic climate for evidence-based practice implementation. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 255–274.
• Braithwaite, J., Churruca, K., Long, J. C., Ellis, L. A., & Herkes, J. (2018). When complexity science meets implementation science: A theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change. BMC Medicine, 16(1), 63.
• Brown, C. H., Curran, G., Palinkas, L. A., Aarons, G. A., Wells, K. B., Jones, L., Collins, L. M., Duan, N., Mittman, B. S., Wallace, A., Tabak, R. G., Ducharme, L., Chambers, D., Neta, G., Wiley, T., Landsverk, J., Cheung, K., & Cruden, G. (2017). An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annual Review of Public Health, 38, 1–22.
• Colquhoun, H. L., Squires, J. E., Kolehmainen, N., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2017). Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: A systematic review. Implementation Science, 12(30), 1–11.
• Engell, T., Stadnick, N. A., Aarons, G. A., & Barnett, M. L. (2023). Common Elements Approaches to Implementation Research and Practice: Methods and Integration with Intervention Science. Global Implementation Research and Applications.
• Eshun-Wilson, I., Ford, N., Tourneau, N. L., Baral, S., Schwartz, S., Kemp, C., & Geng, E. (2022). A Living Database of HIV Implementation Research (LIVE Project): Protocol for Rapid Living Reviews. JMIR Research Protocols, 11(10), e37070.
• Handley, M. A., Lyles, C. R., McCulloch, C., & Cattamanchi, A. (2018). Selecting and improving quasi-experimental designs in effectiveness and implementation research. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 5–25.
• Hemming, K., Haines, T. P., Chilton, P. J., Girling, A. J., & Lilford, R. J. (2015). The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: Rationale, design, analysis, and reporting. BMJ, 350(h391), 1–7.
• Lacouture, A., Breton, E., Guichard, A., & Ridde, V. (2015). The concept of mechanism from a realist approach: A scoping review to facilitate its operationalization in public health program evaluation. Implementation Science, 10(1), 153.
• Lengnick-Hall, R., Proctor, E. K., Bunger, A. C., & Gerke, D. R. (2021). Ten years of implementation outcome research: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open, 11(6), e049339.
• Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M. R., Walsh-Bailey, C., Lyon, A. R., Beidas, R., Mittman, B., Aarons, G. A., Weiner, B. J., & Chambers, D. A. (2020). A systematic review of empirical studies examining mechanisms of implementation in health. Implementation Science, 15(21), 1–25.
• Palinkas, L. A., Aarons, G. A., Horwitz, S., Chamberlain, P., Hurlburt, M., & Landsverk, J. (2011). Mixed methods designs in implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38, 44–53.
• Powell, B. J., Mettert, K. D., Dorsey, C. N., Weiner, B. J., Stanick, C. F., Lengnick-Hall, R., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., Barwick, M. A., Damschroder, L. J., & Lewis, C. C. (2021). Measures of organizational culture, organizational climate, and implementation climate. Implementation Research and Practice, 2, 1–29.
• Sarkies, M. N., Francis-Auton, E., Long, J. C., Pomare, C., Hardwick, R., & Braithwaite, J. (2022). Making implementation science more real. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22(1), 178.
• Shelton, R. C., Adsul, P., Oh, A., Moise, N., & Griffith, D. M. (2021). Application of an antiracism lens in the field of implementation science (IS): Recommendations for reframing implementation research with a focus on justice and racial equity. Implementation Research and Practice, 2, 26334895211049480.
• Singh, N. S., Kovacs, R. J., Cassidy, R., Kristensen, S. R., Borghi, J., & Brown, G. W. (2021). A realist review to assess for whom, under what conditions and how pay for performance programmes work in low- and middle-income countries. Social Science & Medicine, 270, 113624.
• Tsai, A. C., Kohrt, B. A., Matthews, L. T., Betancourt, T. S., Lee, J. K., Papachristos, A. V., Weiser, S. D., & Dworkin, S. L. (2016). Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. Social Science & Medicine, 169, 191–198.