Implementation research attempts to solve a wide range of implementation problems; it has its origins in several disciplines and research traditions (supplementary table A). Although progress has been made in conceptualising implementation research over the past decade,1 considerable confusion persists about its terminology and scope.2– , 4 The word “implement” comes from the Latin “implere,” meaning to fulfil or to carry into effect.5 This provides a basis for a broad definition of implementation research that can be used across research traditions and has meaning for practitioners, policy makers, and the interested public: “Implementation research is the scientific inquiry into questions concerning implementation—the act of carrying an intention into effect, which in health research can be policies, programmes, or individual practices (collectively called interventions).”

Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are playing an increasingly important role in improving health outcomes and reducing health care costs. CQRs are established with the purpose of monitoring quality of care, providing feedback, benchmarking performance, describing pattern of treatment, reducing variation and as a tool for conducting research. To synthesise the impact of clinical quality registries (CQRs) as an ‘intervention’ on (I) mortality/survival; (II) measures of outcome that reflect a process or outcome of health care; (III) health care utilisation; and (IV) healthcare-related costs. The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Google Scholar. In addition, a review of the grey literature and a reference check of citations and reference lists within articles was undertaken to identify relevant studies in English covering the period January 1980 to December 2016. The PRISMA-P methodology, checklist and standard search strategy using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and structured data extraction tools were used. Data on study design and methods, participant characteristics attributes of included registries and impact of the registry on outcome measures and/or processes of care were extracted. We identified 30102 abstracts from which 75 full text articles were assessed and finally 17 articles were selected for synthesis. Out of 17 studies, six focused on diabetes care, two on cardiac diseases, two on lung diseases and others on organ transplantations, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcer healing, surgical complications and kidney disease. The majority of studies were “before after” design (#11) followed by cohort design (#2), randomised controlled trial (#2), experimental non randomised study and one cross sectional comparison. The measures of impact of registries were multifarious and included change in processes of care, quality of care, treatment outcomes, adherence to guidelines and survival. Sixteen of 17 studies demonstrated positive findings in their outcomes after implementation of the registry. Despite the large number of published articles using data derived from CQRs, few have rigorously evaluated the impact of the registry as an intervention on improving health outcomes. Those that have evaluated this impact have mostly found a positive impact on healthcare processes and outcomes. PROSPERO CRD42015017319

Caesarean section (C-section) is a major obstetric intervention for saving lives of women and their newborns from pregnancy and childbirth related complications. Un-necessary C-sections may have adverse impact upon maternal and neonatal outcomes. In Bangladesh there is paucity of data on clinical indication of C-section at population level. We conducted a retrospective study in icddr,b Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) area of Matlab to look into the indications and determinants of C-sections. All resident women in HDSS service area who gave birth in 2013 with a known birth outcome, were included in the study. Women who underwent C-section were identified from birth and pregnancy files of HDSS and their indication for C-section were collected reviewing health facility records where the procedure took place, supplemented by face-to-face interview of mothers where data were missing. Indications of C-section were presented as frequency distribution and further divided into different groups following 3 distinct classification systems. Socio-demographic predictors were explored following statistical method of binary logistic regression. During 2013, facility delivery rate was 84% and population based C-section rate was 35% of all deliveries in icddr,b service area. Of all C-sections, only 1.4% was conducted for Absolute Maternal Indications (AMIs). Major indications of C-sections included: repeat C-section (24%), foetal distress (21%), prolonged labour (16%), oligohydramnios (14%) and post-maturity (13%). More than 80% C-sections were performed in for-profit private facilities. Probability of C-section delivery increased with improved socio-economic status, higher education, lower birth order, higher age, and with more number of Antenatal Care use and presence of bad obstetric history. Eight maternal deaths occurred, of which five were delivered by C-section. C-section rate in this area was much higher than national average as well as global recommendations. Very few of C-sections were undertaken for AMIs. Routine monitoring of clinical indication of C-section in public and private facilities is needed to ensure rational use of the procedure.

This paper examines the characteristics of implementation research (IR) efforts in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) by describing how key IR principles and concepts have been used in published health research in LMICs between 1998 and 2016, with focus on how to better apply these principles and concepts to support large-scale impact of health interventions in LMICs. There is a stark discrepancy between principles of IR and what has been published. Most IR studies have been conducted under conditions where the researchers have considerable influence over implementation and with extra resources, rather than in ‘real world’ conditions. IR researchers tend to focus on research questions that test a proof of concept, such as whether a new intervention is feasible or can improve implementation. They also tend to use traditional fixed research designs, yet the usual conditions for managing programmes demand continuous learning and change. More IR in LMICs should be conducted under usual management conditions, employ pragmatic research paradigm and address critical implementation issues such as scale-up and sustainability of evidence-informed interventions. This paper describes some positive examples that address these concerns and identifies how better reporting of IR studies in LMICs would include more complete descriptions of strategies, contexts, concepts, methods and outcomes of IR activities. This will help practitioners, policy-makers and other researchers to better learn how to implement large-scale change in their own settings.