Cited by 635Health Policy Implementation ScienceBehavioral Health and InterventionsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The future of health behavior change research: What is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice?

Glasgow, Russell E., Klesges, Lisa M., Dzewaltowski, David A., Bull, Sheana S., Estabrooks, Paul·2004·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is well documented that the results of most behavioral and health promotion studies have not been translated into practice. PURPOSE: In this article, reasons for this gap, focusing on study design characteristics as a central contributing barrier, are discussed. METHODS: Four reviews of recent controlled studies in work sites, health care, school, and community settings are briefly discussed and summarized. Their implications for future research and for closing the gap between research and practice are then discussed. RESULTS: These reviews come to consistent conclusions regarding key internal and external validity factors that have and have not been reported. It is very clear that moderating variables and generalization issues have not been included or reported in the majority of investigations, and that as a consequence little is known about the representatives or the robustness of results from current studies. CONCLUSIONS: To significantly improve the current state of affairs, substantial changes will be required on the part of researchers, funding agencies, and review and editorial boards. In conclusion, recommendations for each of these entities are provided.

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 · 10.1207/s15324796abm2701_2

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Contextual factors are key in implementation research.

    “Typically viewed as ‘nuisance’ variance to be controlled in efficacy and effectiveness research, contextual factors are key in implementation research [65-67].”
  • Feasibility of system features can be assessed by gathering input from targeted participants, consumers, and providers during intervention and research program development.

    “This feasibility can be assessed by gathering input from targeted participants, consumers, and providers during intervention and research program development (44).”
  • Intervention effectiveness is an important driver of intervention adoption and support.

    “Because intervention effectiveness is an important driver of intervention adoption and support, it is important that smoking cessation intervention optimization using MOST identifies intervention components and levels that deliver significant benefit in real-world healthcare settings with diverse real-world populations (10, 44).”
  • In addition to effectiveness, the reach or proportion of the population that participates in or receives an intervention has a major effect on the potential population-level impact of that intervention.

    “In addition to effectiveness, the reach or proportion of the population that participates in or receives an intervention has a major effect on the potential population-level impact of that intervention (Glasgow et al. 2004).”

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: 10

  1. Glass T: Psychosocial interventions. In Berkman LF, Kawachi I (eds), Social Epidemiology. Oxford, England: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2000.
  2. Estabrooks PA, Gyurcsik NC: Evaluating the public health im- pact of physical activity interventions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2003, 73:21-28.
  3. Truman BI, Smith-Akin CK, Ilinman AR, et al.: Developing the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Overview and ratio- nale. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001, 18:18-26.
  4. Basch CE, Sliepcevich EM, Gold RS: Avoiding Type III errors in health education program evaluations. Health Education Quarterly. 1985, 12:315-331.
  5. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG: The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2001, 285:1987-1991.
  6. Heller RF, Dobson AJ: Disease impact number and population impact number: Population perspectives to measures of risk and benefits. British Medical Journal. 2000, 321:950-953.
  7. Eakin EG, Glasgow RE, Riley KM: Counseling patients to in- crease physical activity: A review of the effectiveness of current strategies. Journal of Family Practice. 2000, 49:158-168.
  8. Glasgow RE, Bull SS, Gillette C, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA: Behavior change intervention research in health care set- tings: A review of recent reports with emphasis on external validity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2002, 23:62-69.
  9. Estabrooks PA, Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM: How well has recent literature reported on important issues re- lated to translating school-based health promotion research into practice? Journal of School Health. 2003, 73:21-28.
  10. Oldenburg BF, Sallis JF, Ffrench ML, Owen N: Health promo- tion research and the diffusion and institutionalization of inter- ventions. Health Education Research. 1999, 14:121-130.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glasgow, R. E., Klesges, L. M., Dzewaltowski, D. A., Bull, S. S., & Estabrooks, P.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • University of Tennessee Health Science Center (US)
  • Kansas State University (US)
Corresponding author
Glasgow, Russell E.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2004-02
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
3-12
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W2088228975
Cited by
635
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 40
FWCI
6.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
health behavior change, research-practice gap, clinical translation, health promotion, study design characteristics, internal validity, generalizability, moderators, healthcare settings, school environment, community settings, research funding, editorial standards
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Behavior Therapy, Diffusion of Innovation, Forecasting, Health Promotion, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Research, Research Support as Topic, Health Behavior, Treatment Outcome, Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic

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