Implementation science in hybrid randomized controlled trials: a state-of-the-art systematic review

ABSTRACT Introduction: Hybrid randomized controlled trials (RCTs) combine effectiveness and implementation aims to accelerate evidence translation. As this is a new yet evolving methodology, it is timely to review the characteristics and reporting quality of hybrid RCTs, and how implementation science theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) have been used in this context. Methods: Citation-indexed databases (Web of Science, Scopus) were searched from 2012 (inception of “hybrid” terminology) to 2025 for RCTs that were identified as “hybrid” in the title/abstract/keywords and that cited and applied a TMF. RCT design and implementation characteristics were extracted and analyzed descriptively. Reporting quality assessment followed the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI). Results: Of the 1,846 initial hits, 111 papers were included, comprising 52 main results papers, 37 protocols, and 22 secondary papers. Most RCTs were published in the past 5 years (79%), conducted in North America (62%), in primary care/community settings (50%), and calculated sample sizes using the clinical effectiveness outcome (64%). TMFs were mostly used to inform implementation outcomes (88%) versus implementation strategies (52%). The most common TMFs were the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance Framework (RE-AIM) (44%) and Proctor's taxonomy of implementation outcomes (29%). Reporting quality was stronger for clinical intervention components, with fewer RCTs reporting the rationale and fidelity of implementation strategies (27%) compared to the clinical intervention (60%). Conclusions: Hybrid RCTs that apply TMFs are increasing, yet there is evidence that maturation is warranted. Clinical effectiveness rather than implementation remains the focus of most hybrid RCTs. More deliberate application and reporting of implementation science TMFs may improve the quality of future hybrid RCTs. Spanish abstract: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A518

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JBI Evidence Implementation
Published
2026-03-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000568
Primary Topic
Health Policy Implementation Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Implementation science in hybrid randomized controlled trials: a state-of-the-art systematic review

Natasha Roberts, Andrew Martin, Eileen Comber, Ingrid J. Hickman et al.
JBI Evidence Implementation
Health Policy Implementation Science
article

Implementation science in hybrid randomized controlled trials: a state-of-the-art systematic review

Natasha Roberts, Andrew Martin, Eileen Comber, Ingrid J. Hickman, MIKE A. TROTT, Mark Liu, Nathalia Costa, Nadine E Foster
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction: Hybrid randomized controlled trials (RCTs) combine effectiveness and implementation aims to accelerate evidence translation. As this is a new yet evolving methodology, it is timely to review the characteristics and reporting quality of hybrid RCTs, and how implementation science theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) have been used in this context. Methods: Citation-indexed databases (Web of Science, Scopus) were searched from 2012 (inception of “hybrid” terminology) to 2025 for RCTs that were identified as “hybrid” in the title/abstract/keywords and that cited and applied a TMF. RCT design and implementation characteristics were extracted and analyzed descriptively. Reporting quality assessment followed the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI). Results: Of the 1,846 initial hits, 111 papers were included, comprising 52 main results papers, 37 protocols, and 22 secondary papers. Most RCTs were published in the past 5 years (79%), conducted in North America (62%), in primary care/community settings (50%), and calculated sample sizes using the clinical effectiveness outcome (64%). TMFs were mostly used to inform implementation outcomes (88%) versus implementation strategies (52%). The most common TMFs were the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance Framework (RE-AIM) (44%) and Proctor's taxonomy of implementation outcomes (29%). Reporting quality was stronger for clinical intervention components, with fewer RCTs reporting the rationale and fidelity of implementation strategies (27%) compared to the clinical intervention (60%). Conclusions: Hybrid RCTs that apply TMFs are increasing, yet there is evidence that maturation is warranted. Clinical effectiveness rather than implementation remains the focus of most hybrid RCTs. More deliberate application and reporting of implementation science TMFs may improve the quality of future hybrid RCTs. Spanish abstract: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A518

JBI Evidence Implementation
The University of Queensland (AU), Princess Alexandra Hospital (AU), Metro South Health (AU), Children’s Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 28%
Health Policy Implementation Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.