 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
If you would like a copy of the complete publication, contact the senior author via the Who We Are section. Glasgow, R.E., Lichtenstein, E., Marcus, A. (2003) Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy to effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93(8):1261-1267. The gap between research and practice is well documented within preventive medicine and health promotion. We address one of the underlying reasons for this gap: the assumption that effectiveness research naturally and logically follows from successful efficacy research. Efficacy and effectiveness research have evolved different traditions, methods, and values. Consequently, there are inherent differences between the factors contributing to a successful intervention in an efficacy vs. an effectiveness trial. Moderating factors that limit intervention robustness across settings, populations, and intervention agents need to be addressed in efficacy studies, as well as effectiveness trials. The RE-AIM framework provides a useful way of organizing these factors. Greater attention needs to be paid to documenting the reach, likely adoption, implementation, and maintenance of interventions. Recommendations are offered to help close the gap between efficacy and effectiveness research, and to guide evaluation and possible adoption of new programs. |
||||
 |
|||||
