CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 210Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Sciences Research and Education

Disruptive innovations for designing and diffusing evidence-based interventions

Open access
Rotheram-Borus, Mary Jane, Swendeman, Dallas, Chorpita, Bruce F.·2012·American Psychologist
DOI 10.1037/a0028180PMC PMC3951837
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Evidence-based therapeutic and preventive intervention programs (EBIs) have been growing exponentially. Yet EBIs have not been broadly adopted in the United States. In order for our EBI science to significantly reduce disease burden, we need to critically reexamine our scientific conventions and norms. Innovation may be spurred by reexamining the traditional biomedical model for validating, implementing, and diffusing EBI products and science. The model of disruptive innovations suggests that we reengineer EBIs on the basis of their most robust features in order to serve more people in less time and at lower cost. A disruptive innovation provides a simpler and less expensive alternative that meets the essential needs for the majority of consumers and is more accessible, scalable, replicable, and sustainable. Examples of disruptive innovations from other fields include minute clinics embedded in retail chain drug stores, $2 generic eyeglasses, automated teller machines, and telemedicine. Four new research approaches will be required to support disruptive innovations in EBI science: synthesize common elements across EBIs; experiment with new delivery formats (e.g., consumer controlled, self-directed, brief, paraprofessional, coaching, and technology and media strategies); adopt market strategies to promote and diffuse EBI science, knowledge, and products; and adopt continuous quality improvement as a research paradigm for systematically improving EBIs, based on ongoing monitoring data and feedback. EBI science can have more impact if it can better leverage what we know from existing EBIs in order to inspire, engage, inform, and support families and children to adopt and sustain healthy daily routines and lifestyles.

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 · 10.1037/a0028180

Cites

123 of 123 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?

  • Modularity is an ideal fit with current trends toward disruptive innovations in EBPIs, as it is patient-centered, responsive to idiographic variables, and maintains a tight link to the evidence base while allowing therapists to select components matching their expertise and feasible in their settings.

    “Modularity is also an ideal fit with current trends toward disruptive innovations in EBPIs, as it is patient-centered, responsive to idiographic variables that influence treatment engagement and response, and maintains a tight link to the evidence base while allowing therapists to select components that match their expertise and are feasible within their practice settings (Rotheram-Borus et al., 2”

    From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy modules: Differential impact on treatment processes and outcomes (2016) · cites this paper as Rotheram-Borus et al., 2012

    In “Synthesize and Diffuse Common and Robust Elements of EBIs” (page unavailable), the paper describes clinicians using evidence-based practice elements to customize interventions for a person’s characteristics and setting; it also presents a modular intervention as an example of this approach. It does not say that therapists select components to match their own expertise or that modularity specifically responds to individual variables influencing treatment engagement and response. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The science-practice gap may reflect a failure of the dominant intervention research paradigm to address implementation factors in usual care.

    “This science-practice gap may reflect a failure of the dominant intervention research paradigm to adequately address factors that influence the implementation of EBPI in usual care (Fairburn & Wilson, 2013; Kazdin & Blase, 2011; Rotheram-Borus, Swendeman, & Chorpita, 2012).”

    From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy modules: Differential impact on treatment processes and outcomes (2016) · cites this paper as Rotheram-Borus, Swendeman, & Chorpita, 2012

  • Evidence-based practices in behavioral interventions require both careful examination of intervention efficacy and the ability of the practice to be translated and disseminated for real-world use.

    “Evidence-based practices not only require careful examination of the efficacy of an intervention but also the ability of the evidence-based practice to be translated and disseminated for real-world use [2].”

    From Agile science: creating useful products for behavior change in the real world (2016) · cites this paper as [2]

  • Evidence-based practices often become their own separate silos of evidence, rendering it very difficult to mix and match modules across evidence-based practices.

    “It has been argued elsewhere that evidence-based practices often become their own separate silos of evidence, rendering it very difficult to mix and match modules across evidence-based practices [2].”

    From Agile science: creating useful products for behavior change in the real world (2016) · cites this paper as [2]

  • The disruptive innovation process emphasizes providing simpler and less expensive alternatives to current practices that meet the essential need for the majority of users to make them more accessible, scalable, and replicable.

    “The disruptive innovation process emphasizes the focus on providing simpler and less expensive alternatives to current practices that meet the essential need for the majority of users in order to make them more easily accessible, scalable, and replicable [2].”

    From Agile science: creating useful products for behavior change in the real world (2016) · cites this paper as [2]

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

3 of the 126 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. California Healthcare Foundation 2006 The minute clinic movement: Model for the future or 60 seconds of fame? 7 18 http://www.chcf.org/press/view.cfm?itemID=123240
  2. Fishbein M Bandura A Triandis HC Factors influencing behavior and behavior change Final Report- NIMH Theorists Workshop Washington, DC National Institute of Mental Health 1991
  3. Pine JB Gilmore JH 1999 The Experience Economy Cambridge, MA Harvard Business School Press
  4. Sutherland A Thompson B 2001 Kidfluence: Why kids today mean business Toronto, Canada McGraw-Hill Ryerson

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Swendeman, D., & Chorpita, B. F.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
ORCID
Venue
American Psychologist
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2012
Volume
67
Issue
6
Pages
463-476
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
DOI
10.1037/a0028180
PMC
PMC3951837
OpenAlex
W2161464172
Semantic Scholar
ca50e2e0f43c9261a4f32ef583a1989c7c90cc7e
Cited by
210
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 5
FWCI
51.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH058107)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
disruptive innovation, evidence-based interventions, diffusion of innovations, implementation science, biomedical model, intervention scalability, continuous quality improvement, market strategy, self-guided intervention, coaching
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Mental Health Services, Preventive Health Services, Evidence-Based Medicine

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