The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why Don’t We See More Translation of Health Promotion Research to Practice? Rethinking the Efficacy-to-Effectiveness Transition
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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”
From Effectiveness-implementation Hybrid Designs: Combining Elements of Clinical Effectiveness and Implementation Research to Enhance Public Health Impact (2012) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Effectiveness-implementation Hybrid Designs: Combining Elements of Clinical Effectiveness and Implementation Research to Enhance Public Health Impact (2012) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“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).”
From The Sustainability of Evidence-Based Interventions and Practices in Public Health and Health Care (2018) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“These studies also tend to be conducted in well-resourced settings and unrepresentative populations, making the conditions of implementation also unrepresentative (48).”
From The Sustainability of Evidence-Based Interventions and Practices in Public Health and Health Care (2018) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“the transfer of such evidence into routine practice often does not happen as desired [1-3].”
From Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research (2014) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“as is the fidelity of delivery of PA interventions [2,10,11].”
From Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research (2014) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Despite its importance, such translation research is relatively rare (6–8), perhaps because using current approaches translation can be arduous and slow, sometimes taking 15 to 20 years (9, 10).”
From The Multiphase Optimization Strategy for Engineering Effective Tobacco Use Interventions (2011) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“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).”
From The Multiphase Optimization Strategy for Engineering Effective Tobacco Use Interventions (2011) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“This is problematic as researchers raise the question whether interventions that are successful in efficacy studies are also effective in the real world (56).”
From How can physical activity be promoted among children and adolescents? A systematic review of reviews across settings (2019) · cites this paper as [56]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,252
Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322 · Cited by 7,217
Self-citationMoher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755
Moher, D. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1987 · Cited by 2,545
(1999) · Cited by 1,648
Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology.
Brunswik, E. (1955) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0047470 · Cited by 1,600
Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier
Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. (2000) · Cited by 1,304
In defense of external invalidity.
Mook, D. G. (1983) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.38.4.379 · Cited by 1,284
Evaluating primary care behavioral counseling interventions An evidence-based approach
Whitlock, E. (2002) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(02)00415-4 · Cited by 1,057
One size does not fit all: the case for tailoring print materials
Kreuter, M. W., Strecher, V. J., & Glassman, B. (1999) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02895958 · Cited by 831
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 10.1037/0022-006X.63.5.718 · DOI · Paper page
- Joyner L, McNeeley S, Kahn R. ADA’s provider recognition program. HMO Pract. 1997;11:168–170.
- 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1194 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,003 of 1,003
Thielecke, J., Buntrock, C., Freund, J., Braun, L., Ebert, D. D., Berking, M., Baumeister, H., & Titzler, I. (2023) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2023.100671 · Cited by 10
“…have been preferable in order to evaluate in a more detail manner on factors like accessibility and availability, in this study, TEC-A participants could be recruited earlier, thus interview results could already be used in the early stages of the implementation process (Glasgow et al., 2003).”
Gray, N., Mays, M. Z., Wolf, D., & Jirsak, J. (2010) · American Journal of Health Promotion · doi:10.4278/ajhp.080923-quan-209 · Cited by 49
Cully, J. A., Hundt, N. E., Fletcher, T., Sansgiry, S., Zeno, D., Kauth, M. R., Kunik, M. E., & Sorocco, K. (2024) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.20220582 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Research Institute (US)
- ORCID
- Glasgow, Russell E.
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 2003-08
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1261-1267
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- PMC
- PMC1447950
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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 › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Public Health Policies and Education
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › 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
