Article

Public health - Implementation science

Division of Advanced Science and Policy Analysis, John E. Fogarty International Center, U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Science (Impact Factor: 31.48). 01/2008; 318(5857):1728-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.1150009
Source: PubMed
0 Followers
 · 
122 Views
  • Source
    • "At its most basic level, implementation is viewed as the execution of a plan, a method or a design for achieving certain outcomes. In direct contrast, the concept of implementation science, drawn largely but not exclusively from the medical research field implies a more integrated, rigorous, and systematic approach to translating policy into practice (Madon et al. 2007). As an emerging idea, implementation science is defined within the medical field as the study of methods to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into healthcare policy and practice (Fixsen et al. 2005, p. 15). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article looks at high-performing education systems in Asia through the lens of leadership and leadership development. It proposes that the top-performing education systems systematically build the leadership capacity for improvement and that this is part of an implementation science geared to maximizing performance. Drawing upon initial findings from a cross-national comparative study (The 7 System Leadership Study is funded by the University of Malaya and involves Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Russia, England and Australia.), the article focuses upon two high-performing systems in Asia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The article concludes by arguing that the top performing systems in Asia, as determined by international comparative data, not only create the leadership capacity to consistently outperform others but also invest in an implementation science that defines, delineates and ultimately, determines exceptional performance.
    The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 12/2014; 23(4). DOI:10.1007/s40299-014-0209-y · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "There is a major gap between the development of new health interventions and their delivery to communities in the developing world (Madon et al., 2008). Many potentially effective disease control programmes have had only limited impact on the burden of disease because of inadequate implementation, which results in poor access, even to very simple and affordable products (TDR, 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Summary Cross-sectional surveys with carers, health workers, community drug distributors (CDDs) and neighbourhood health committees were conducted to identify factors associated with utilization of community-directed treatment (ComDT) of soil-transmitted helminths in children aged 12-59 months in Mazabuka district, Zambia. The surveys took place in December 2006 and December 2007. In addition child treatment records were reviewed. The factors that were found to be significantly associated (p<0.05) with treatment of children by the CDDs were: (1) the perception of soil-transmitted helminth infections as having significant health importance, (2) the community-based decision to launch and subsequently implement ComDT, (3) the use of the door-to-door method of drug distribution, (4) CDDs being visited by a supervisor, (5) CDDs receiving assistance in mobilizing community members for treatment, (6) CDDs having access to a bicycle and (7) CDDs having received assistance in collecting drugs from the health centre. Despite the effectiveness of ComDT in raising treatment coverage there are factors in the implementation process that will still affect whether children and their carers utilize the ComDT approach. Identification and understanding of these factors is paramount to achieving the desired levels of utilization of such interventions.
    Journal of Biosocial Science 05/2014; 47(1):1-17. DOI:10.1017/S0021932014000170 · 0.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The cancer prevention agenda must be broadened to include research on these issues by social and political sciences. Implementation science deserves particular attention in order to ensure that the knowledge generated is integrated effectively into decisions and policies that affect cancer and that the delivery of cancer prevention policies reaches vulnerable communities , especially in the developing world (Madon et al. 2007). Influence and advocacy "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Nearly 13 million new cancer cases and 7.6 million cancer deaths occur worldwide each year; 63% of cancer deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. A substantial proportion of all cancers are attributable to carcinogenic exposures in the environment and the workplace. Objective: We aimed to develop an evidence-based global vision and strategy for the primary prevention of environmental and occupational cancer. Methods: We identified relevant studies through PubMed by using combinations of the search terms “environmental,” “occupational,” “exposure,” “cancer,” “primary prevention,” and “interventions.” To supplement the literature review, we convened an international conference titled “Environmental and Occupational Determinants of Cancer: Interventions for Primary Prevention” under the auspices of the World Health Organization, in Asturias, Spain, on 17–18 March 2011. Discussion: Many cancers of environmental and occupational origin could be prevented. Prevention is most effectively achieved through primary prevention policies that reduce or eliminate involuntary exposures to proven and probable carcinogens. Such strategies can be implemented in a straightforward and cost-effective way based on current knowledge, and they have the added benefit of synergistically reducing risks for other noncommunicable diseases by reducing exposures to shared risk factors. Conclusions: Opportunities exist to revitalize comprehensive global cancer control policies by incorporating primary interventions against environmental and occupational carcinogens.
    Environmental Health Perspectives 02/2013; 121(4). DOI:10.1289/ehp.1205897 · 7.03 Impact Factor
Show more