Background <p>Tailored implementation addresses the inherent dynamic complexity and heterogeneous nature of implementation practice. In general, tailored implementation involves setting implementation objectives, identifying determinants, matching strategies to those determinants, and developing an evaluation plan. How matching a specific implementation strategy to a determinant is done remains largely unknown. This study aimed to provide an overview of methods for matching strategies that have been applied in research and practice.</p> Methods <p>A scoping review of scientific and grey literature was conducted. A Rapid Assessment Procedure approach guided the design and analysis. Five online scientific bibliographic databases and various Dutch websites were searched for scientific and grey literature reporting applied methods for matching strategies to determinants. In addition, fifteen implementation practitioners in the Netherlands were interviewed to gain insights into how matching is conducted in daily practice. Findings were iteratively triangulated.</p> Results <p>Fifty-eight scientific articles and ten grey literature documents were included in the review. All identified methods for matching implementation strategies followed a stepped approach and recommended involving both implementation experts and stakeholders at various stages. Almost all methods were based on existing theories, models, and frameworks, such as Intervention Mapping, Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change, and Behaviour Change Wheel. Nevertheless, detailed instructions for matching strategies to determinants were lacking. Similarly, guidance on identifying and involving stakeholders remained superficial. Interviews indicated that in practice, strategy matching is generally based on previous experience and is non-systematic.</p> Conclusions <p>Various methods for matching implementation strategies to determinants are reported in literature and used in practice. However, specific and detailed instructions for matching remain lacking. Methods that balance specificity, flexibility, and pragmatism are needed.</p>