Abstract

The argument put forward in this paper is that successful implementation of research into practice is a function of the interplay of three core elements--the level and nature of the evidence, the context or environment into which the research is to be placed, and the method or way in which the process is facilitated. It also proposes that because current research is inconclusive as to which of these elements is most important in successful implementation they all should have equal standing. This is contrary to the often implicit assumptions currently being generated within the clinical effectiveness agenda where the level and rigour of the evidence seems to be the most important factor for consideration. The paper offers a conceptual framework that considers this imbalance, showing how it might work in clarifying some of the theoretical positions and as a checklist for staff to assess what they need to do to successfully implement research into practice.