Five Years of the Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM): Use, Usability, and Opportunities for Refinement

Justin Smith, PhD
University of Utah

James Merle, PhD
University of Utah

Olutobi Sanuade, PhD
University of Utah

Elizabeth Sloss, PhD, MBA, RN
University of Utah

ABSTRACT:
Background:
Clear specification of implementation determinants, strategies, mechanisms, and outcomes is essential for rigor, reproducibility, and causal inference in implementation science. The Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) was developed to integrate these elements into a single, coherent framework to support planning, execution, reporting, and synthesis of implementation studies. Since its publication in 2020, the IRLM has been widely disseminated and adopted; however, systematic evidence on how it is used in practice, where users encounter challenges, and how the model and guidance for its use might be refined has been limited.

Methods:
We conducted a multi-phase evaluation of the IRLM five years post-publication. First, we completed a citation analysis and systematic scoping review to assess the IRLM’s scientific reach, patterns of use across implementation phases, construct linking, data sources, and community or partner engagement in published studies. Second, informed by these findings, we conducted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study, including a cross-sectional survey of IRLM users (n=129) and semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of users (n=22). Survey measures included patterns of use, perceived benefits and challenges, and the System Usability Scale (SUS), while interviews explored experiences applying the IRLM across contexts, levels of experience, and implementation phases. Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated to identify convergent and explanatory themes. Finally, findings are being used to inform an expert panel–guided refinement of IRLM materials as well as new materials to promote its use.

Results:
The citation analysis and systematic scoping review demonstrated broad uptake of the IRLM across disciplines and settings, but predominantly for planning, with limited use for execution, reporting, or synthesis and infrequent comprehensive linking across core elements. Survey and interview findings echoed these use patterns, and indicated that users perceived the IRLM as highly valuable for conceptual clarity, planning, and communication, but reported moderate overall usability. Key challenges included procedural ambiguity, difficulty operationalizing mechanisms and linkages, visual complexity in larger projects, and limited guidance for engaging non-research partners. These challenges were most pronounced among newer users and those with fewer prior IRLM applications.

Conclusions:
Together, these findings highlight both the value of the IRLM and clear opportunities for refinement. Ongoing work with an expert panel will translate these results into updated IRLM materials, including a user guide, refined worksheets, and a reporting checklist, to strengthen usability, support partner-engaged application, and enhance the IRLM’s impact across diverse implementation research and practice contexts.