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

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 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.

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.

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

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1037/0022-006X.63.5.718 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Joyner L, McNeeley S, Kahn R. ADA’s provider recognition program. HMO Pract. 1997;11:168–170.
  3. 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1194 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,836

Metadata

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 › 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