Article | Published:

A logic model for precision medicine implementation informed by stakeholder views and implementation science



Precision medicine promises to improve patient outcomes, but much is unknown about its adoption within health-care systems. A comprehensive implementation plan is needed to realize its benefits.


We convened 80 stakeholders for agenda setting to inform precision medicine policy, delivery, and research. Conference proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. We mapped themes representing opportunities, challenges, and implementation strategies to a logic model, and two implementation science frameworks provided context.


The logic model components included inputs: precision medicine infrastructure (clinical, research, and information technology), big data (from data sources to analytics), and resources (e.g., workforce and funding); activities: precision medicine research, practice, and education; outputs: precision medicine diagnosis; outcomes: personal utility, clinical utility, and health-care utilization; and impacts: precision medicine value, equity and access, and economic indicators. Precision medicine implementation challenges include evidence gaps demonstrating precision medicine utility, an unprepared workforce, the need to improve precision medicine access and reduce variation, and uncertain impacts on health-care utilization. Opportunities include integrated health-care systems, partnerships, and data analytics to support clinical decisions. Examples of implementation strategies to promote precision medicine are: changing record systems, data warehousing techniques, centralized technical assistance, and engaging consumers.


We developed a theory-based, context-specific logic model that can be used by health-care organizations to facilitate precision medicine implementation.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Hamilton AB, Oishi S, Yano EM, Gammage CE, Marshall NJ, Scheuner MT. Factors influencing organizational adoption and implementation of clinical genetic services. Genet Med. 2014;16:238–245.

  2. 2.

    Burke W, Korngiebel DM. Closing the gap between knowledge and clinical application: challenges for genomic translation. PLoS Genet. 2015;11:e1004978.

  3. 3.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Applying an implementation science approach to genomic medicine: workshop summary. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2016.

  4. 4.

    Khoury MJ. No shortcuts on the long road to evidence-based genomic medicine. JAMA. 2017;318:27–28.

  5. 5.

    Manolio TA, Chisholm RL, Ozenberger B, Roden DM, et al. Implementing genomic medicine in the clinic: the future is here. Genet Med. 2013;15:258–267.

  6. 6.

    Johnson JA, Weitzel KW. Advancing pharmacogenomics as a component of precision medicine: how, where, and who? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99:154–156.

  7. 7.

    Feero WG, Manolio TA, Khoury MJ. Translational research is a key to nongeneticist physicians’ genomics education. Genet Med. 2014;16:871–873.

  8. 8.

    Sperber NR, Carpenter JS, Cavallari LH, Damschroder LJ, et al. Challenges and strategies for implementing genomic services in diverse settings: experiences from the Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) network. BMC Med Genom. 2017;10:35.

  9. 9.

    Scheuner MT, Marshall N, Lanto A, Hamilton AB, Oishi S, Lerner B, et al. Delivery of clinical genetic consultative services in the Veterans Health Administration. Genet Med. 2014;16:609–619.

  10. 10.

    Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139.

  11. 11.

    Kellogg W. Logic Model development guide. 2004. Accessed 28 May 2017.

  12. 12.

    Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.

  13. 13.

    Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21.

  14. 14.

    Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, et al. Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:39.

  15. 15.

    Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:109.

  16. 16.

    Orlando LA, Sperber NR, Voils C, Nichols M, Myers RA, Wu RR, et al. Developing a common framework for evaluating the implementation of genomic medicine interventions in clinical care: the IGNITE Network’s Common Measures Working Group. Genet Med. 2018;20:655–663.

  17. 17.

    Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Yoon PW, Dowling N, Moore CA, Bradley L. The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genet Med. 2007;9:665–674.

  18. 18.

    Clyne M, Schully SD, Dotson WD, Douglas MP, Gwinn M, Kolor K, et al. Horizon scanning for translational genomic research beyond bench to bedside. Genet Med. 2014;16:535–538.

  19. 19.

    Atkins D, Kilbourne AM, Shulkin D. Moving from discovery to system-wide change: the role of research in a learning health care system: experience from three decades of health systems research in the Veterans Health Administration. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:467–487.

  20. 20.

    Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.

Download references


Funding was provided by the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service for the field-based meeting “Defining Outcomes and Metrics for Precision Medicine” (44497/BIS 2753). C.C.-C. was supported by the Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations through the Advanced Fellowship in HSR&D. C.I.V. was supported by a Research Career Scientist Award from the Health Services Research and Development service of the Department of Veterans Affairs (RCS 14-443). E.M.Y. was funded by a Veterans Affairs HSR&D Senior Research Career Scientist Award (project number RCS 05-195). We thank the conference participants and VHA staff who provided logistical support.

Author information

Correspondence to Maren T. Scheuner MD, MPH.

Ethics declarations


The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplemental Table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Key words

  • precision medicine
  • logic model
  • implementation
Fig. 1: Flow chart summarizing the coding and analysis of the conference proceedings.
Fig. 2: Logic model for precision medicine implementation informed by key stakeholders.
Fig. 3: Number of participants contributing to the logic model concepts by stakeholder group.