Article

Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition.

Kaiser Permanente Colorado, USA.
American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.23). 09/2003; 93(8):1261-7. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.93.8.1261
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The gap between research and practice is well documented. We address one of the underlying reasons for this gap: the assumption that effectiveness research naturally and logically follows from successful efficacy research. These 2 research traditions have evolved different methods and values; consequently, there are inherent differences between the characteristics of a successful efficacy intervention versus those of an effectiveness one. Moderating factors that limit robustness across settings, populations, and intervention staff need to be addressed in efficacy studies, as well as in effectiveness trials. Greater attention needs to be paid to documenting intervention reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Recommendations are offered to help close the gap between efficacy and effectiveness research and to guide evaluation and possible adoption of new programs.

4 Followers
 · 
138 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Dissemination and implementation of health care interventions are currently hampered by the variable quality of reporting of implementation research. Reporting of other study types has been improved by the introduction of reporting standards (e.g. CONSORT). We are therefore developing guidelines for reporting implementation studies (StaRI). Methods Using established methodology for developing health research reporting guidelines, we systematically reviewed the literature to generate items for a checklist of reporting standards. We then recruited an international, multidisciplinary panel for an e-Delphi consensus-building exercise which comprised an initial open round to revise/suggest a list of potential items for scoring in the subsequent two scoring rounds (scale 1 to 9). Consensus was defined a priori as 80% agreement with the priority scores of 7, 8, or 9. Results We identified eight papers from the literature review from which we derived 36 potential items. We recruited 23 experts to the e-Delphi panel. Open round comments resulted in revisions, and 47 items went forward to the scoring rounds. Thirty-five items achieved consensus: 19 achieved 100% agreement. Prioritised items addressed the need to: provide an evidence-based justification for implementation; describe the setting, professional/service requirements, eligible population and intervention in detail; measure process and clinical outcomes at population level (using routine data); report impact on health care resources; describe local adaptations to the implementation strategy and describe barriers/facilitators. Over-arching themes from the free-text comments included balancing the need for detailed descriptions of interventions with publishing constraints, addressing the dual aims of reporting on the process of implementation and effectiveness of the intervention and monitoring fidelity to an intervention whilst encouraging adaptation to suit diverse local contexts. Conclusions We have identified priority items for reporting implementation studies and key issues for further discussion. An international, multidisciplinary workshop, where participants will debate the issues raised, clarify specific items and develop StaRI standards that fit within the suite of EQUATOR reporting guidelines, is planned. Registration The protocol is registered with Equator: http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#17.
    Implementation Science 03/2015; 10. DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0235-z · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Centers for Disease Prevention and Control's National Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) Program oversee CCC programs designed to develop and implement CCC plans via CCC coalitions, alliances, or consortia of program stakeholders. We reviewed 40 up-to-date plans for states and the District of Columbia in order to assess how capacity building and sustainability, two evidence-based practices necessary for organizational readiness, positive growth, and maintenance are addressed. We employed an electronic key word search, supplemented by full text reviews of each plan to complete a content analysis of the CCC plans. Capacity is explicitly addressed in just over half of the plans (53%), generally from a conceptual point of view, with few specifics as to how capacity will be developed or enhanced. Roles and responsibilities, timelines for action, and measurements for evaluation of capacity building are infrequently mentioned. Almost all (92%) of the 40 up-to-date plans address sustainability on at least a cursory level, through efforts aimed at funding or seeking funding, policy initiatives, and/or partnership development. However, few details as to how these strategies will be implemented are found in the plans. We present the Texas plan as a case study offering detailed insight into how one plan incorporated capacity building and sustainability into its development and implementation. Training, technical assistance, templates, and tools may help CCC coalition members address capacity and sustainability in future planning efforts and assure the inclusion of capacity building and sustainability approaches in CCC plans at the state, tribal, territorial, and jurisdiction levels.
    Frontiers in Public Health 01/2015; 3:40. DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2015.00040
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the fact that diffusion research has existed for more than a century, a quantitative review covering this subject in a broad and general context is still lacking. This article reviews diffusion research by providing an extensive bibliometric and clustering analysis. In total, we identified thirteen clusters comprising 6,811 publications over the period of 2002–2011, and thereby describe the characteristics of diffusion research in an extensive and general way based on quantitative bibliometric methods. The analysis reveals that diffusion research is highly interdisciplinary in character, involving several disciplines from ethnology to economics, with many overlapping research trails. The concluding section indicates that diffusion research seems to be data driven and relies heavily on solely empirical studies. Consequently, influential publications rely on empirical data that support and change theories in modest ways only. In this contribution, we propose a review method that produces a fairly good overview of the research area and which can be applied to any knowledge field to replace or complement the traditional literature review.
    Scientometrics 10/2014; 102:1615-1645. DOI:10.1007/s11192-014-1448-7 · 2.27 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
9 Downloads
Available from