Generating New Evidence for Implementation: Using Scoping, Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Utilizing Implementation Research Outcomes in Global Settings

Systematic reviews of clinical, biomedical, and biobehavioral research are critical for identifying evidence that can be implemented to achieve population-level impact and reduce adverse health outcomes in resource-constrained settings. However, most systematic reviews and meta-analyses prioritize comparative effectiveness, with limited attention to implementation-relevant outcomes. Reviews that explicitly assess implementation processes, contextual factors, and real-world feasibility are needed to complement effectiveness evidence and support the translation of interventions into practice and real-world settings. Such implementation-focused reviews can help bridge the translational gap by informing dissemination and scale-up strategies. This approach is essential for researchers, implementers, public health practitioners, clinicians, and policymakers across multiple sectors, including medicine, public health, education, social services, and environmental sciences.There is a growing need to move beyond traditional comparative effectiveness systematic reviews to generate evidence that directly supports the implementation of evidence-based interventions, practices, and innovations across diverse settings. This special issue of Frontiers in Health Services focuses on scoping reviews, systematic reviews, umbrella reviews, meta-analyses, and other evidence-based literature reviews that prioritize the examination of implementation and dissemination processes in global contexts and across varied populations. Reviews that incorporate implementation research outcomes are critical to the final stages of the knowledge translation process, as they help identify which interventions are most appropriate for specific global settings and how they should be effectively implemented or scaled.This collection aims to underscore the value of rigorous, implementation-focused reviews for advancing global health. Specifically, it seeks to highlight evidence that is actionable across diverse contexts while reflecting on future challenges faced by researchers, implementers, public health practitioners, clinicians, and policymakers engaged in translating evidence into practice.Scope and information for authors: All submitted manuscripts must be scoping reviews or systematic reviews, with or without a meta-analysis, and must demonstrate a clear focus on implementation, dissemination, or policy. Reviews may address any disease area aligned with the expertise of the investigative team; however, manuscripts that do not prioritize implementation research outcomes will be considered non-responsive. All manuscripts must include: (1) a completed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist or PRISMA-ScR (Scoping Reviews) or PRISMA-LSR (Living Systematic Reviews); (2) explicit assessment of implementation research outcomes; and (3) a formal evaluation of bias using established tools (e.g., MMAT, ASSESS). Eligible reviews may also examine implementation effectiveness, stakeholder engagement and involvement processes, implementation methods, or theoretical frameworks. 4) Studies could also focus on systematic reviews of implementation effectiveness, implementation stakeholder engagement or involvement processes, methods, or frameworks. Topic editors: Emmanuel Peprah, Ekaterina Noyes Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/79061/generating-new-evidence-for-implementation-using-scoping-systematic-reviews-and-meta-analysis-utilizing-implementation-research-outcomes-in-global-settings