Cited by 278Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Developing Robust, Sustainable, Implementation Systems Using Rigorous, Rapid and Relevant Science

Open access
Glasgow, Russell E., Chambers, David·2012·Clinical and Translational Science

Abstract

Background: Current approaches to medical science generally have not resulted in rapid, robust integration into feasible, sustainable real world healthcare programs and policies. Implementation science risks falling short of expectations if it aligns with historical norms. Fundamentally different scientific approaches are needed to accelerate such integration. Methods: We propose that the key goal of implementation science should be to study the development, spread and sustainability of broadly applicable and practical programs, treatments, guidelines, and policies that are contextually relevant and robust across diverse settings, delivery staff, and subgroups. We recommend key conceptual and methodological characteristics needed to accomplish these goals. Results: The methods to produce such advances should be rapid, rigorous, transparent, and contextually relevant. We recommend approaches that incorporate a systems perspective, investigate generalizability, are transparent, and employ practical measures and participatory approaches. Conclusions: To produce different outcomes, we need to think and act differently. Implications of such an implementation science approach include fundamental changes that should be relevant to Clinical Translational Science Award investigators, comparative effectiveness researchers, those interested in pragmatic trials, grant funders, and community partners. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume #: 1–8

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 · 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00383.x

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Experts have prioritized sustainability as an understudied area and identified it as one of the most significant translational research problems of our time.

    “Recently, experts have prioritized sustainability as an understudied area (45), identifying it as “one of the most significant translational research problems of our time” (103, p. 2) and as a persistent challenge across a range of settings and service delivery sectors, and across health behaviors and outcomes.”

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: 4

  1. Glasgow RE , Chambers D , Khoury M , Kaplan R , Hunter C , Vinson C . Dissemination and implementation science: current status, future directions for integrating research, practice and policy . Am J Public Health. 2011 . (In press).
  2. Glasgow RE , Steiner JF . Comparative effectiveness research to accelerate translation: recom- mendations for "CERT-T" . In: Brownson RC , Colditz G , Proctor E , eds. ; 2012 ( In press ).
  3. Institute of Medicine . A foundation for evidence-driven practice: a rapid learning system for cancer care . Workshop Summary. Washington DS: NAS Press; 2010 .
  4. Bennett GG , Glasgow RE , Warner ET , Askew S , Goldman J , Ritzwoller DP , Emmons KM , Rosner BA , Colditz GG , For the Be Fit Be Well Study Investigators. Weight loss among socioeconomically disadvantaged primary care patients: Results from Be Fit Be Well, a randomized effectiveness trial . JAMA. 2011 . (In Press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glasgow, R. E., & Chambers, D.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (US)
Corresponding author
Glasgow, Russell E.
Venue
Clinical and Translational Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
48-55
ISSN
  • 1752-8054 (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-8062
OpenAlex
W1980568269
Cited by
278
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 7
FWCI
33.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical and Translational Science (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
implementation science, generalizability, systems approach, participatory approach, translational research, pragmatic trials, comparative effectiveness research, research transparency
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Health Policy, Health Services Research, Humans, Organizational Objectives, Research Design, Research Support as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Community Networks, Evidence-Based Medicine, Translational Research, Biomedical, Comparative Effectiveness Research

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