BackgroundMany of society’s health problems require research-based knowledge acted on by healthcare practitioners together with implementation of political measures from governmental agencies. However, there has been limited knowledge exchange between implementation science and policy implementation research, which has been conducted since the early 1970s. Based on a narrative review of selective literature on implementation science and policy implementation research, the aim of this paper is to describe the characteristics of policy implementation research, analyze key similarities and differences between this field and implementation science, and discuss how knowledge assembled in policy implementation research could inform implementation science.DiscussionFollowing a brief overview of policy implementation research, several aspects of the two fields were described and compared: the purpose and origins of the research; the characteristics of the research; the development and use of theory; determinants of change (independent variables); and the impact of implementation (dependent variables). The comparative analysis showed that there are many similarities between the two fields, yet there are also profound differences. Still, important learning may be derived from several aspects of policy implementation research, including issues related to the influence of the context of implementation and the values and norms of the implementers (the healthcare practitioners) on implementation processes. Relevant research on various associated policy topics, including The Advocacy Coalition Framework, Governance Theory, and Institutional Theory, may also contribute to improved understanding of the difficulties of implementing evidence in healthcare. Implementation science is at a relatively early stage of development, and advancement of the field would benefit from accounting for knowledge beyond the parameters of the immediate implementation science literature.SummaryThere are many common issues in policy implementation research and implementation science. Research in both fields deals with the challenges of translating intentions into desired changes. Important learning may be derived from several aspects of policy implementation research.

No abstract

This is the first systematic review of qualitative literature addressing political, economic and social processes and relationships that shape occupational health and safety (OHS) regulation. The meta-ethnography identifies calls for attention to challenges and opportunities for OHS regulation relating to non-standard work situations, grey zones of enforcement, politics of policy formation, and variation among employers and workers.

PurposeThe aim was to analyse the role and activities of employers with regard to return to work (RTW), in local workplace practice. MethodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with sick-listed workers and their supervisors in 18 workplaces (n=36). The analytical approach to study the role of employers in RTW was based on the three-domain model of social corporate responsibility. The model illustrates the linkage between corporations and their social environment, and consists of three areas of corporate responsibility: economic, legal and ethical. ResultsEmployers had difficulties in taking social responsibility for RTW, in that economic considerations regarding their business took precedence over legal and ethical considerations. Employers engaged in either 'RTW activities' or 'transition activities' that were applied differently depending on how valued sick-listed workers were considered to be to their business, and on the nature of the job (e.g. availability of suitable work adjustments). ConclusionsThis study suggests that Swedish legislation and policies does not always adequately prompt employers to engage in RTW. There is a need for further attention to the organizational conditions for employers to take social responsibility for RTW in the context of business pressure and work intensification.3

No abstract