Implementation Science is commonly described as the study of methods and approaches that promote the uptake and use of evidence-based interventions into routine practice and policymaking. In this issue of JABFM, investigators share a wealth of new insights from the frontlines of Implementation Science in primary care: what it is, how we are doing it, and how it is advancing the evidence base of primary care. The breadth of implementation science in primary care is affirmed by the range of topics covered, from thought leader recommendations on future directions for the field, to reports on how best practices in policy and practice are shaping primary care implementation in the United States and Canada. There are also important updates on agents of primary care implementation themselves, such as practice facilitators, geriatric care teams, and family physicians interested in providing obstetric care. Other articles report on novel practice transformation efforts that advance health promotion and disease prevention, and innovative approaches to identifying and addressing social determinants of health in primary care practices and the communities they serve. The articles seem to generate as many new questions as they answer, and highlight the need for continued emphasis on advancing the science of implementation in primary health care. (J Am Board Fam Med 2018;31:307-311.)It is commonly estimated that evidence-based interventions require an average of 17 years to be incorporated into routine practice.1,2 Increasing payer and delivery system interest in narrowing that time gap has rapidly elevated the field of Implementation Science; the study of how evidence-based practice and policy can be effectively communicated, deployed, and brought to scale. Effective and efficient implementation is of particular importance in primary care, which is both the largest delivery platform and niche in the US health care ecology and an area largely neglected in the landscape of health care spending and biomedical research. 3,4 This theme issue of JABFM highlights lessons from, and efforts to advance implementation science in primary care.

No abstract

We thank the following reviewers for their time, expertise, and dedication to the JABFM. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (JABFM) peer reviewers serve a vital role in contributing to the field of family medicine and the scientific community. We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank our peer reviewers for their support during the last year. In 2010, 348 individuals provided 421 peer reviews and advice regarding the suitability of articles for publication in the JABFM. Reviewers took an average of 23 days to submit a review.We would like to recognize our top reviewers. Each of the manuscripts submitted to the JABFM that undergo peer review is evaluated and scored by the editors; in the list below, peer reviewers with an asterisk next to their name are in the top 15% (based on evaluation scores plus quantity of reviews) of all reviewers in 2010. We also enjoy welcoming new peer reviewers into the fold. Peer reviewing is a vital service activity that also helps author/researchers improve their work. Reviewers generally receive up to 2 review requests per year, depending on the topics of manuscripts we receive. Reviewers are always free to decline a request, or to indicate periods of unavailability.

No abstract

We thank our peer reviewers for their time, expertise, and dedication to the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (JABFM). The JABFM peer reviewers serve a vital role in contributing to the field of family medicine and the scientific community. We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank our peer reviewers for their support during the last year. In 2012, 372 individuals provided 476 peer reviews and advice regarding the suitability of articles for publication in the JABFM. Reviewers took an average of 22 days to submit a review. Top ReviewersWe would like to recognize our top reviewers. Each of the manuscripts submitted to the JABFM that undergo peer review is evaluated and scored by the editors; in the list below, peer reviewers with an asterisk next to their name are in the top 12% (based on evaluation scores plus quantity of reviews) of all reviewers in 2012.