Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to- effectiveness transition
Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to- effectiveness transition
复制标题
DOI：
10.2105/ajph.93.8.1261
复制
发表时间：
2003-08-01
影响因子：
12.7
通讯作者：
Marcus, AC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Glasgow, RE;Lichtenstein, E;Marcus, AC
研究与实践之间的差距已有充分的文献记载。我们探讨造成这一差距的根本原因之一：即认为有效性研究自然且合乎逻辑地源于成功的效力研究这一假设。这两种研究传统已经形成了不同的方法和价值观；因此，成功的效力干预措施的特征与有效性干预措施的特征之间存在内在差异。在效力研究以及有效性试验中，都需要考虑限制不同环境、人群和干预人员稳健性的调节因素。需要更加关注记录干预措施的覆盖范围、采用情况、实施情况和维持情况。提出了一些建议，以帮助缩小效力研究和有效性研究之间的差距，并指导对新项目的评估和可能的采用。
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.