Search

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) clinical guidelines at present rarely assign the highest grade recommendation to behavioral counseling interventions for chronic disease prevention or risk reduction because of concerns about the certainty and quality of the evidence base. As a result, the broad integration of behavioral counseling interventions in primary care remains elusive. Thus, there is an urgent need for novel perspectives on how to generate the highest-quality and -certainty evidence for primary care-focused behavioral counseling interventions. As members of the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM)--a multidisciplinary scientific organization committed to improving population health through behavior change--we review the USPSTF mandate and current recommendations for behavioral counseling interventions and provide a perspective for the future that calls for concerted and coordinated efforts among SBM, USPSTF, and other organizations invested in the rapid and wider uptake of beneficial, feasible, and referable primary care-focused behavioral counseling interventions. This perspective highlights five areas for further development, including (1) behavioral counseling-focused practice-based research networks; (2) promotion of USPSTF evidence standards and the increased use of pragmatic RCT design; (3) quality control and improvement procedures for behavioral counseling training; (4) systematic research on effective primary care-based collaborative care models; and (5) methodologic innovations that capitalize on disruptive technologies and healthcare transformation. Collective efforts to improve the health of all Americans in the 21st century and beyond must ensure that effective, feasible, and referable behavioral counseling interventions are embedded in modern primary care practice.

Context To aid translation of childhood obesity interventions evidence into practice, research studies must report results in a way that better supports pragmatic decision making. The current review evaluated the extent to which information on key external validity dimensions, participants, settings, interventions, outcomes, and maintenance of effects, was included in research studies on behavioral treatments for childhood obesity. Evidence acquisition Peer-reviewed studies of behavioral childhood obesity treatments published between 1980 and 2008 were identified from (1) electronic searches of social science and medical databases; (2) research reviews of childhood obesity interventions; and (3) reference lists cited in these reviews. Included studies reported on a controlled obesity intervention trial, targeted overweight or obese children aged 2–18 years, included a primary or secondary anthropometric outcome, and targeted change in dietary intake or physical activity behaviors. Evidence synthesis 1071 publications were identified and 77 met selection criteria. Studies were coded on established review criteria for external validity elements. All studies lacked full reporting of generalizability elements. Across criteria, the average reporting was 23.9% (range=0%–100%). Infrequently reported were setting-level selection criteria and representativeness, characteristics regarding intervention staff, implementation of the intervention content, costs, and program sustainability. Conclusions Enhanced reporting of relevant and pragmatic information in behavioral investigations of childhood obesity interventions is needed to improve the ability to evaluate the applicability of results to practice implementation. Such evidence would improve translation of research to practice, provide additional explanation for variability in intervention outcomes, and provide insights into successful adaptations of interventions to local conditions.

Background The translation and dissemination of prevention intervention evidence into practice is needed to address significant public health issues such as childhood obesity. Increased attention to and reporting of external validity information in research publications would allow for better understanding of generalizability issues relevant to successful translation. To demonstrate this potential, recent reports of childhood obesity prevention interventions were evaluated on the extent to which external validity dimensions were reported. Methods Childhood obesity prevention studies that were controlled, long-term research trials published between 1980 and 2004 that reported a behavioral target of physical activity and/or healthy eating along with at least one anthropometric outcome were identified in 2005. Studies were summarized between 2005 and 2006 using review criteria developed by Green and Glasgow in 2006. Results Nineteen publications met selection criteria. In general, all studies lacked full reporting on potential generalizability and dissemination elements. Median reporting over all elements was 34.5%; the mode was 0% with a range of 0% to 100%. Most infrequent were reports of setting level selection criteria and representativeness, characteristics regarding intervention staff, implementation of intervention content, costs, and program sustainability. Conclusions The evidence base for future prevention interventions can be improved by enhancing the reporting of contextual and generalizability elements central to translational research. Such efforts face practical hurdles but could provide additional explanation for variability in intervention outcomes, insights into successful adaptations of interventions, and help guide policy decisions.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) clinical guidelines at present rarely assign the highest grade recommendation to behavioral counseling interventions for chronic disease prevention or risk reduction because of concerns about the certainty and quality of the evidence base. As a result, the broad integration of behavioral counseling interventions in primary care remains elusive. Thus, there is an urgent need for novel perspectives on how to generate the highest-quality and -certainty evidence for primary care–focused behavioral counseling interventions. As members of the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM)—a multidisciplinary scientific organization committed to improving population health through behavior change—we review the USPSTF mandate and current recommendations for behavioral counseling interventions, and provide a perspective for the future that calls for concerted and coordinated efforts among SBM, USPSTF, and other organizations invested in the rapid and wider uptake of beneficial, feasible, and referable primary care–focused behavioral counseling interventions. This perspective highlights five areas for further development, including: (1) behavioral counseling–focused practice-based research networks; (2) promotion of USPSTF evidence standards and the increased use of pragmatic RCT design; (3) quality control and improvement procedures for behavioral counseling training; (4) systematic research on effective primary care–based collaborative care models; and (5) methodologic innovations that capitalize on disruptive technologies and healthcare transformation. Collective efforts to improve the health of all Americans in the 21st century and beyond must ensure that effective, feasible, and referable behavioral counseling interventions are embedded in modern primary care practice.

Background: Information to judge both the internal and external validity of health behavior research conducted in healthcare settings is vital to translate research findings to practice. This paper reviews the extent to which this research has reported on elements of internal and external validity, with emphasis on the extent to which research has been conducted in representative settings with representative populations. Methods: A comprehensive review was conducted of controlled interventions for dietary change, physical activity, or smoking cessation conducted in healthcare settings and published in 12 leading health behavior journals between 1996 and 2000. Using the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework, the characteristics and results of these studies were summarized to document the extent to which intervention reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance were reported and what has been learned about each of these dimensions. Results: A total of 36 studies qualified for review. Participation rates among eligible patients were reported in 69% of studies and were generally quite high; in contrast, only 30% of studies reported on participation rates among either healthcare settings or providers. Implementation data were reported in 77% of the studies and these rates were generally high, with the caveat that intervention was often delivered by paid research staff. Long-term maintenance results were reported very consistently at the individual level, but program continuation was almost never reported at the setting level. Conclusions: We conclude that a much stronger emphasis needs to be placed on the representativeness of providers and settings that are studied. Examples of how this can be done and recommendations for future research are provided.

Information to judge both the internal and external validity of health behavior research conducted in healthcare settings is vital to translate research findings to practice. This paper reviews the extent to which this research has reported on elements of internal and external validity, with emphasis on the extent to which research has been conducted in representative settings with representative populations.A comprehensive review was conducted of controlled interventions for dietary change, physical activity, or smoking cessation conducted in healthcare settings and published in 12 leading health behavior journals between 1996 and 2000. Using the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework, the characteristics and results of these studies were summarized to document the extent to which intervention reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance were reported and what has been learned about each of these dimensions.A total of 36 studies qualified for review. Participation rates among eligible patients were reported in 69% of studies and were generally quite high; in contrast, only 30% of studies reported on participation rates among either healthcare settings or providers. Implementation data were reported in 77% of the studies and these rates were generally high, with the caveat that intervention was often delivered by paid research staff. Long-term maintenance results were reported very consistently at the individual level, but program continuation was almost never reported at the setting level.We conclude that a much stronger emphasis needs to be placed on the representativeness of providers and settings that are studied. Examples of how this can be done and recommendations for future research are provided.