The Proctor's reporting guideline for implementation strategies represents a landmark framework in the field of implementation science, aiming to address the issue of inconsistent reporting in implementation research by standardizing the naming, definition, and operationalization of implementation strategies, thereby enhancing the credibility and utility of research findings. This paper provides an in-depth interpretation of the core connotations of this reporting guideline and illustrates its application in developing interview outlines and specifying implementation strategies, using a brief smoking cessation intervention project as a case study. Through this reporting guideline, abstract recommendations for implementation are systematically transformed into clear, multidimensional operational guides, significantly improving the transparency of strategy connotations and the replicability of actual execution. Meanwhile, the case study highlights the flexibility of the guideline, which allows researchers to adapt the content and format of strategies based on local resources and cultural contexts, thus enhancing practical adaptability while maintaining scientific rigor. However, the application of Proctor's reporting guideline still faces challenges, primarily manifested in the potential confusion surrounding the constructs of temporality and dose in practice, as well as the challenges that the inherent flexibility of the guideline may pose to the assessment of fidelity and effectiveness. Despite these limitations, the reporting guideline remains a vital tool for implementation research; future efforts should focus on optimizing its application—through refining operational guidelines, standardizing flexible adaptations, and involving stakeholders—to better guide implementation studies and continuously promote high-quality development in the field.

Implementation evaluation frameworks are essential tools in implementation science for assessing the quality and effectiveness of evidence-based interventions. This paper systematically reviews eight internationally representative evaluation frameworks, outlining their development backgrounds and structural features. It then compares their usability, applicability, and testability. Two case studies are presented to illustrate how evaluation frameworks can be integrated with process models and determinant frameworks to enhance the understanding and guidance of complex interventions. This paper aims to offer practical guidancefor selecting and applying evaluation frameworks, thereby supporting the advancement of implementation science in both local and global health contexts.

Reporting guidelines are structured checklists for researchers to follow when reporting specific types of studies. As researches conducted in real-world settings to address practical issues, implementation research has stringent requirements for the replicability of result and the transparency of reporting, making its reporting guidelines particularly important. This paper systematically introduces the reporting guidelines in the field of implementation science, outlines their classification systems and scopes of application, and focuses on explaining the core characteristics and functions of five key reporting guidelines, including the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI), Reporting guidelines for implementation and operational research, the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (FRAME), and recommendations for specifying and reporting implementation strategies. Furthermore, combined with the PEDALs research paradigm in implementation science, this paper further clarifies the specific application pathways for reporting guidelines and discusses directions for refinement, aiming to provide references for researchers to select appropriate reporting guidelines.

Implementation strategies are targeted interventions aimed at promoting the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of research findings or evidence-based practices in routine healthcare. If implementation strategies can precisely match implementation barriers and facilitators, the likelihood of successful implementation will increase. The CFIR-ERIC matching tool, which can match corresponding ERIC implementation strategies based on CFIR barriers, is a convenient and direct tool for developing implementation strategies. This paper provides a detailed overview of the origins and development of the CFIR-ERIC matching tool, outlines its contents and usage, and illustrates how to apply the tool to develop implementation strategies by using a brief smoking cessation intervention project as an example. The paper also discusses the advantages and limitations of using this tool for developing implementation strategies, with the aim of providing methodological reference for other researchers.