Cited by 15Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Addicted to discovery: Does the quest for new knowledge hinder practice improvement?

Perl, Harold I.·2011·Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

Despite the billions of dollars spent on health-focused research and the hundreds of billions spent on delivering health services each year, relatively little money and effort are directed toward investigating how best to connect the two. This results in missed opportunities to assure that research findings inform and improve quality across healthcare in general and for addiction prevention and treatment in particular. There is an asymmetrical focus that favors the identification of new interventions and neglects the implementation of science-based knowledge in actual practice. The consequences of that neglect are severe: significantly diminished progress in research on how to implement treatments that could improve the lives of persons with addiction problems, their families, and the rest of society. While the advancement of knowledge regarding effective implementation is lagging, it is clear that existing systemic incentives in the conduct of science inhibit rather than facilitate widespread adoption of evidence-based practices. This commentary proposes three interrelated strategies for improving the implementation process. First, develop scientific tools to understand implementation better, by expanding investigations on the science of implementation and broadening approaches to the design and execution of research. Second, nurture and support a collaborative implementation workforce comprised of scientists and on-the-ground practitioners, with an explicit focus on enhancing appropriate incentives for both. Third, pay closer attention to crafting research that seeks answers that are most relevant to clinicians' actual needs, primarily by ensuring that the anticipated users of the evidence-based practice are full partners in developing the questions right from the start.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.01.027

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perl, H. I.
Corresponding author
Perl, Harold I.
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-06
Volume
36
Issue
6
Pages
590-596
ISSN
0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2061564892
Cited by
15
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
addiction prevention, addiction treatment, implementation research, evidence-based practice, research-practice gap, research incentives, research funding priorities, quality of care
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Research, Behavior, Addictive, Evidence-Based Medicine, Information Dissemination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review