The article by Kitson et al. evaluates the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) framework. The authors discuss the theoretical and practical challenges associated with this framework, which remains largely untested and lacks a robust theoretical foundation. They introduce a typology derived from social policy analysis to distinguish between conceptual frameworks, theories, and models, highlighting the importance of clarifying these terms for better understanding and methodological approaches in knowledge translation. The paper outlines the next phase of their work, focusing on the development of a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach for the PARiHS framework. This approach aims to determine the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then use aggregated data to select the most appropriate facilitation methods. The authors emphasize the need for robust and sensitive measures, the role of facilitation as an intervention, and the broader implications of evidence into practice. The authors suggest forming an international research implementation science collaborative to systematically collect and analyze experiences with the PARiHS framework and similar approaches. They also recommend further refinement of definitions around conceptual frameworks, theories, and models, advocating for a broader discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of developing a coherent and flexible approach to framework and theory use, and the need for more complex and tailored interventions that fit local contexts. The authors propose creating communities of researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to test the framework and advance the field of implementation science.The article by Kitson et al. evaluates the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) framework. The authors discuss the theoretical and practical challenges associated with this framework, which remains largely untested and lacks a robust theoretical foundation. They introduce a typology derived from social policy analysis to distinguish between conceptual frameworks, theories, and models, highlighting the importance of clarifying these terms for better understanding and methodological approaches in knowledge translation. The paper outlines the next phase of their work, focusing on the development of a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach for the PARiHS framework. This approach aims to determine the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then use aggregated data to select the most appropriate facilitation methods. The authors emphasize the need for robust and sensitive measures, the role of facilitation as an intervention, and the broader implications of evidence into practice. The authors suggest forming an international research implementation science collaborative to systematically collect and analyze experiences with the PARiHS framework and similar approaches. They also recommend further refinement of definitions around conceptual frameworks, theories, and models, advocating for a broader discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of developing a coherent and flexible approach to framework and theory use, and the need for more complex and tailored interventions that fit local contexts. The authors propose creating communities of researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to test the framework and advance the field of implementation science.