How might we increase the societal impacts of implementation science?

Societal impact represents the tangible benefits—economic, social, or environmental—that research generates beyond academia. While implementation science is uniquely positioned to bridge the “so-what” gap, we must increase the value and impact of our science. This study examines researchers’ motivations, dissemination practices, barriers, actions (facilitators), and perceived obligations related to the societal benefits of research. In this US-based cross-sectional study, conducted February through March 2026, we identified implementation scientists through leading universities, large-scale training programs, and recent authorship in major implementation science journals. The final sample ( N = 687; 45.1% response rate) represented over 150 institutions. The survey examined dissemination (an active, planned process that ensures those who can use your research learn about it and can apply the findings) and impact (the lasting benefits of research for society). We conducted descriptive analyses to summarize the survey data. Most respondents were faculty members (70.0%). Participants conducted research in clinical settings (45.3%), followed by health delivery systems (16.4%) and community settings (14.9%). Approximately one-third (29.7%) of participants currently worked in clinical practice and 69.0% had worked in practice and/or policy settings. Priority audiences perceived as having the highest impact were health systems leaders (33.9%), clinicians (19.2%), and policymakers (18.5%). Regarding reported impact, 84.6% of respondents cited academic journals as the most impactful for their careers, while only 16.3% believed journals were the most impactful for practice. While 84.3% of respondents agreed they have an obligation to document societal impact, only 6.2% rated their current performance as “very good” or “excellent.” Reported barriers to impact included limited organizational resources (48.7%) and short research funding periods (40.0%). To enhance impact, participants endorsed engaging end-users throughout the research process (43.2%), creating dedicated university dissemination units (49.7%), and establishing specific funding for dissemination activities (61.2%). To remain relevant and accountable, implementation science must prioritize and better document societal impact. Addressing the “so-what” gap requires a multilevel shift in the research enterprise, incorporating new training, improved metrics, and structural changes to academic incentives and funding models. Developing a culture of impact will ensure that scientific investments yield tangible, societally relevant benefits.