Implementation Outcome Taxonomy
Implementation Outcomes: A Taxonomy of Eight Measurable Dimensions for Assessing Implementation Fidelity and Success · Also known as: implementation outcomes, Proctor framework, implementation success measures
The Implementation Outcome Taxonomy is a framework defining eight measurable dimensions for assessing implementation success: Acceptability, Adoption, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Fidelity, Implementation Cost, Penetration, and Sustainability. Developed by Proctor et al. (2011), it provides a standardized vocabulary and measurement approach to distinguish implementation process outcomes (how well was the intervention delivered?) from clinical outcomes (did patients get better?). This taxonomy is foundational to implementation science because it acknowledges that an evidence-based intervention can be effective (clinical outcome) but poorly implemented (implementation outcome), or feasible to deliver but not adopted by organizations.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use Implementation Outcomes to: (1) Plan evaluation at the start of implementation projects—decide which outcomes matter most for your intervention. (2) Monitor implementation quality during rollout—track Fidelity, Adoption, and Cost to catch problems early. (3) Explain why an evidence-based intervention failed or succeeded—implementation outcomes often reveal the real barrier. (4) Compare implementation across settings or strategies—which approach yields better Adoption, Fidelity, and Sustainability? (5) Report implementation success to funders and stakeholders alongside clinical outcomes—both matter. (6) Identify sustainability challenges before funding ends—measure Sustainability at 6 months to plan for continuation. Implementation Outcomes are more specific and measurable than 'implementation success,' which is too vague.
Strengths & limitations
- Provides a standardized, evidence-based taxonomy reducing confusion about what 'implementation success' means. All studies can measure the same eight outcomes, enabling comparisons.
- Practical and actionable—each outcome has validated measurement tools (surveys, observation checklists) making assessment feasible for practitioners.
- Comprehensive—eight outcomes capture the full implementation journey from initial acceptability through long-term sustainability, not just clinic-level adoption.
- Distinguishes implementation outcomes from clinical outcomes, allowing studies to report both and understand when they diverge (e.g., high Fidelity but low clinical benefit suggests the intervention itself is weak, not the implementation).
- Extensively validated with 300+ citations since 2011. Recommended by NIH and major funders for implementation research.
- Measuring all eight outcomes is resource-intensive; implementers often prioritize a subset (e.g., Adoption and Fidelity) and forgo others (e.g., Appropriateness, Sustainability).
- Some outcomes (e.g., Feasibility, Appropriateness) are subjective and require qualitative assessment, which is harder to standardize across sites than quantitative measures.
- Outcomes may conflict: improving Feasibility (simplifying the protocol) might reduce Fidelity (skipping protocol steps). Trade-offs require explicit decision-making.
- Sustainability is measured at 6-12 months, but many interventions fail later (2-3 years post-implementation). Longer-term follow-up is needed but costly.
- The framework does not specify thresholds for 'success'; a 60% Adoption rate may be excellent in a resistant setting but poor in a receptive one. Benchmarking is context-dependent.
Frequently asked
Are Implementation Outcomes the same as clinical outcomes?
No. Implementation outcomes measure whether the intervention was delivered and adopted (Fidelity, Adoption, Penetration). Clinical outcomes measure whether patients improved (mortality, symptom scores). Both matter. Example: a medication can have high clinical efficacy but low Adoption if clinicians find it unacceptable. Conversely, an intervention can be adopted but show poor clinical outcomes if the implementation quality (Fidelity) is low or the intervention itself is weak.
Which implementation outcomes are most important?
It depends on your goal. If rolling out an intervention, Acceptability and Adoption are early priorities (will people use it?). Once implemented, Fidelity matters (are they using it correctly?). For long-term success, Sustainability is critical (will it last?). Most implementation studies measure at least Adoption, Fidelity, and Sustainability.
What is a 'good' score on these outcomes?
Thresholds vary by intervention and setting. In general: Acceptability ≥3.5/5 is good. Adoption ≥70% is acceptable, ≥80% is excellent. Fidelity ≥85% is standard. Penetration ≥60% is reasonable for population-level interventions. Sustainability is a yes/no at follow-up; if >50% of sites/clinicians are still doing it at 12 months, it's sustainable. Benchmark against similar interventions in your field.
Can Implementation Outcomes be measured at baseline, or do they require implementation to be underway?
Some can be measured pre-implementation: Acceptability (do they think it's acceptable?), Appropriateness (do they think it fits?), Feasibility (do they think it's feasible?). Others require implementation: Adoption (did they actually implement?), Fidelity (are they delivering it?), Penetration (are eligible participants reached?), Sustainability (is it still going?). Design your measurement plan accordingly.
Sources
- Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G. A., Bunger, A., ... & Rojas, D. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76. DOI: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 ↗
- Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G. A., Bunger, A., ... & Rojas, D. (2015). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(2), 123-132. link ↗
- Raghavan, R., Bright, C. L., & Shadoin, A. L. (2008). Toward a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 35(3), 142-154. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-26 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 4). Implementation Outcomes: A Taxonomy of Eight Measurable Dimensions for Assessing Implementation Fidelity and Success. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/implementation-science/implementation-outcome-taxonomy
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Consolidated Framework for Implementation ResearchImplementation Science↔ compare
- Fidelity Assessment in ImplementationImplementation Science↔ compare
- Knowledge TranslationImplementation Science↔ compare
- Normalization Process TheoryImplementation Science↔ compare
- RE-AIM FrameworkImplementation Science↔ compare