CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 539Health Policy Implementation ScienceSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHealth Sciences Research and Education

A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice

Open access
Simpson, D.Dwayne·2002·Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
DOI 10.1016/s0740-5472(02)00231-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Systematic evaluations of efforts to transfer research-based interventions and procedures into general practice at community drug treatment programs have been limited. However, practical experiences as well as results from studies of technology transfer and organizational behavior in related fields provide a basis for proposing a heuristic model of key factors that influence this process. The successful completion of four stages of activity typically involved in program change (exposure, adoption, implementation, and practice of new interventions) appears to be influenced by several organizational considerations (e.g., institutional readiness for change, resources, and climate) as well as staff attributes. Assessment instruments for measuring organizational functioning (based on ratings aggregated for staff and patients in a program) are introduced, along with preliminary evidence for their validity. A better conceptual understanding of the process of program change and common barriers that may be encountered is needed for effectively transferring research to practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0740-5472(02)00231-3

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Individuals who do not view the climate of their organization as welcoming innovation and organizations whose cultures do not promote exploration of practices in response to challenges are highly unlikely to explore the use of EBPs.

    “Thus, individuals who do not view the climate of their organization as welcoming innovation and organizations whose cultures do not promote exploration of practices in response to challenges are highly unlikely to explore the use of EBPs”

    From Advancing a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors (2011) · cites this paper as Simpson 2002

    Section 3, “The influence of organizational attributes” (page unavailable), identifies tolerance for change and leadership attitudes as factors in transferring research to practice. Section 5.1, “Influences on the stages of change” (page unavailable), links considering innovations to readiness and motivation, but discusses organizational climate chiefly as a condition for implementation. It does not establish that people who perceive an unwelcoming climate, or organizations that do not encourage exploration, are highly unlikely to explore evidence-based practices. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Successful transfer of research to practice involves programmatic change in the form of activities including exposure, adoption, implementation, and practice of new empirically-supported approaches.

    “Successful transfer of research to practice involves programmatic change in the form of activities including exposure, adoption, implementation, and practice of new empirically-supported approaches [83].”

    From Mindfulness-based treatment of addiction: current state of the field and envisioning the next wave of research (2018) · cites this paper as [83]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Backer, T. E. (1988). Research utilization and managing innovation in rehabilitation organizations. Journal of Rehabilitation, 54 (2), 18 -22.
  2. Backer, T. E. (1993). Information alchemy: transforming information through knowledge utilization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44 (4), 217 -221.
  3. Brown, B. S. (2000). From research to practice: the bridge is out and the water's rising. In J. A. Levy, R. C. Stephens, & D. C. McBride (Eds.), Emergent issues in the field of drug abuse: advances in medical sociol- ogy, (Vol. 7, pp. 345 -365). Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
  4. Brown, B. S., & Flynn, P. M. (2002). The federal role in transferring knowledge to practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22 (4), 245 -257.
  5. Davis, H. R., & Salasin, S. (1977). Readiness for organizational change: decision determinant analysis guide. In I. Davidoff, M. Guttentag, & J. Offutt (Eds.), Evaluating community mental health services: princi- ples and practice ( pp. 14 -20). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, The Staff College.
  6. Simpson, D. D. (1997). Effectiveness of drug-abuse treatment: a review of research from field settings. In J. A. Egertson, D. M. Fox, & A. I. Leshner (Eds.), Treating drug abusers effectively ( pp. 41 -73). Cam- bridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers of North America.
  7. Simpson, D. D., & Brown, B. S. (1999). Special issue: treatment process and outcome studies from DATOS. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 57 (2), 81 -174.
  8. Simpson, D. D., & Curry, S. J. (1997). Special issue: Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11 (4), 211 -337.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Simpson, D. D.
Affiliations
Texas Christian University (US)
Corresponding author
Simpson, D.Dwayne
Venue
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-06
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
171-182
ISSN
0740-5472 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0740-5472(02)00231-3
OpenAlex
W2164256639
Cited by
538
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 38
FWCI
39.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA13093)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
research-to-practice transfer, software modification, technology transfer, organizational preparedness, intervention adoption, intervention implementation, organizational climate, barriers to change, general practice
MeSH terms
Academies and Institutes, Humans, Research, Program Evaluation, Public Health Practice, Substance Abuse Treatment Centers, Program Development, Models, Organizational, Technology Transfer, Evidence-Based Medicine, Substance-Related Disorders

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