Cited by 1,836Health Policy Implementation SciencePublic Health Policies and EducationEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Why Don’t We See More Translation of Health Promotion Research to Practice? Rethinking the Efficacy-to-Effectiveness Transition

Open access
Glasgow, Russell E., Lichtenstein, Edward, Marcus, Alfred C.·2003·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

The gap between research and practice is well documented. We address one of the underlying reasons for this gap: the assumption that effectiveness research naturally and logically follows from successful efficacy research. These 2 research traditions have evolved different methods and values; consequently, there are inherent differences between the characteristics of a successful efficacy intervention versus those of an effectiveness one. Moderating factors that limit robustness across settings, populations, and intervention staff need to be addressed in efficacy studies, as well as in effectiveness trials. Greater attention needs to be paid to documenting intervention reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Recommendations are offered to help close the gap between efficacy and effectiveness research and to guide evaluation and possible adoption of new programs.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.93.8.1261

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • Current conceptions of research designs fail to maximize clinical utility for practicing clinicians and other decision makers, for example through a failure to focus on external validity or implementation-related barriers and facilitators to routine use and sustainability of effective practices.

    “In addition, it has been suggested that current conceptions of research designs fail to “maximize clinical utility for practicing clinicians and other decision makers”18; for example, through a failure to focus on external validity or implementation-related barriers and facilitators to routine use and sustainability of “effective” practices.4,21,22”
  • The impetus to blend or explicitly link research traditions in the service of accelerating scientific progress and enhancing public health impact is not at all new, and the idea of blending clinical effectiveness and implementation research elements is also not new.

    “The impetus to blend or explicitly link research traditions in the service of accelerating scientific progress and enhancing public health impact is not at all new,4,38–40 and the idea of blending clinical effectiveness and implementation research elements is also not new.”
  • Evidence for determining which interventions are evidence based often comes from systematic reviews of controlled trials that prioritize internal validity over external validity.

    “Often, this evidence comes from systematic reviews of controlled trials that prioritize internal validity (e.g., does the intervention work?) over external validity (e.g., can the findings be generalized, and among what populations and settings?) (48, 54).”
  • These studies tend to be conducted in well-resourced settings and unrepresentative populations, making the conditions of implementation also unrepresentative.

    “These studies also tend to be conducted in well-resourced settings and unrepresentative populations, making the conditions of implementation also unrepresentative (48).”
  • Program effects demonstrated under idealized or laboratory conditions often do not translate into sustainable programs in practice.

    “Increasingly, researchers are learning that program effects demonstrated under idealized or laboratory conditions often do not translate into sustainable programs in practice [44, 45].”

    From Social Network Analysis for Program Implementation (2015) · cites this paper as [45]

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. [9]Committee on Quality Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
  2. [10]Joyner L, McNeeley S, Kahn R. ADA’s provider recognition program. HMO Pract. 1997;11:168–170. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [19]Basch CE, Sliepcevich EM, Gold RS. Avoiding type III errors in health education program evaluations. Health Educ Q. 1985;12:315–331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. [29]Estabrooks PA, Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM. How well has recent literature reported on important issues related to translating school-based health promotion research into practice? J School Health. 2003;73:21–28.12621720 [Google Scholar]
  5. [30]Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 1995.
  6. [39]Brewer MB. Research design and issues of validity. In: Reis HT, Judd CM, eds. Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2000:3–39.
  7. [44]Abrams DB, Emmons KM, Linnan L, Biener L. Smoking cessation at the workplace: conceptual and practical considerations. In: Richmond R, ed. Interventions for Smokers: An International Perspective. New York, NY: Williams & Wilkins; 1994:137–169.
  8. [48]Elbourne DR, Campbell MK. Extending the CONSORT statement to cluster randomized trials: for discussion. Stat Med. 2001;20:489–496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. [50]Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports. JAMA. 2001;285:1987–1991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. [51]Zaza S, Lawrence RS, Mahan CS, Fullilove M, et al. Scope and organization of the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(suppl 1):27–34. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C.
Affiliations
Oregon Research Institute (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2003-08
Volume
93
Issue
8
Pages
1261-1267
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2090482282
Cited by
1,836
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 100 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 126 · 2014: 102 · 2013: 103 · 2012: 116
FWCI
107.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS-10123, R18 HS010123)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
research-practice gap, health promotion interventions, effectiveness research, efficacy research, intervention implementation, intervention maintenance, intervention adoption, intervention reach, program evaluation, translation of research
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Health Promotion, Health Services Research, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Research Design, United States, Public Health Practice, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 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