In a previous piece in the journal, Campione et al1 advocated for oncology researchers and practitioners to use implementation science strategies to move evidence into practice, arguing that the oft-cited 17 years that it takes to move evidence into practice are too long. Key steps to accomplish this are as follows: (1) identifying clinical problems; (2) determining best evidence to address the clinical problem; (3) surveying the clinical environment to identify and address barriers to change and facilitators to implement new strategies; and (4) evaluating the effectiveness of the changed practice. Implementation science research can be challenging—after all, the variability among clinical practice is great.

One piece in this current issue by Doubblestein et al2 addresses step 3—identifying barriers and facilitators among clinicians to adopt standardized outcome measures for use among women treated for lymphedema. Outcome measures, critical to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment, play a role in ensuring that treatment is effective. These measures must be valid, reliable, and sensitive to change, but, additionally, outcome measures must be clinically feasible. One issue related to the use of outcome measures is the plethora of published measures. Work by the Oncology EDGE Task Force (EDGE = Evidence Database to Guide Effectiveness) sought to identify key outcome measures that met strong psychometric properties and are clinically feasible.3 This task force work was intended to create a standardized list of measures for use by oncology clinicians. Reducing the number of available measures in order to create a standardized list is also important to be able to evaluate the findings of clinical studies, to identify acceptable metrics to measure effectiveness of treatment, and to avoid redundancy among tests and measures.4 Indeed, one of the key barriers identified by Doubblestein et al2 is that there are multiple outcome measures for lymphedema that evaluate similar domains, resulting in inconsistency in clinical use. Work to reduce this variability will be key as the clinician community will have difficulty moving evidence into practice if the variability among research studies creates confusion regarding best practice. While the use of outcome measures has become standard practice in the clinical environment, much work remains to create a key list of measures that are not only valid, reliable, and clinically feasible. Researchers must argue for the best tools to narrow the field of tools available. This then helps clinicians so that practice patterns can be widely evaluated, step 4 in implementation science work.

Additional pieces in this issue address other important steps in implementation science and evidence-based practice. The article by Maciukiewicz and Dickerson5 provides important prognostic information related to the relationship between objective measures and quality of life related to shoulder function among women treated for breast cancer. Brick and colleagues6 evaluate the preferences for rehabilitation among older individuals with breast cancer, a piece critical to understand patient preferences for care. Without this information, efforts to move evidence into practice may not be targeted in the right direction. Additional columns provide practical information for the care of the individual with lymphedema.

Rehabilitation Oncology continues to support the efforts of researchers to provide relevant information for improving clinical practice related to the care of the person with cancer. This is key to narrowing the evidence-to-practice gap. This issue, focusing on women with a history of breast cancer, provides evidence for clinicians to improve the care of these women.

1. Campione E, Wampler-Kuhn M, Fisher MI. Translating evidence into practice through knowledge implementation. Rehabil Oncol. 2021;39(2):103–110. doi:10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000242. 2. Doubblestein DA, Spinelli BA, Goldberg A, Larson CA, Yorke AM. Facilitators and barriers to the use of outcome measures by certified lymphedema therapists. Rehabil Oncol. 2023. doi:10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000331. 3. Levangie PK, Fisher MI. Oncology Section Task Force on Breast Cancer Outcomes: an introduction to the EDGE Task Force and clinical measures of upper extremity function. Rehabil Oncol. 2013;31(1):6–10. 4. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(18):2003–2013. 5. Maciukiewicz JM, Dickerson CR. Improving evidence-based methods of characterizing shoulder-related quality of life for survivors of breast cancer. Rehabil Oncol. 2023. doi:10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000332. 6. Brick R, Lyons KD, Bender C, et al. Preferences on delivery of cancer rehabilitation services among older individuals surviving breast cancer with cancer-related disability: a qualitative study. Rehabil Oncol. 2023. doi:10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000341.