Search

The usual remedy suggested for bridging the science-to-practice gap is to improve the efficiency of disseminating the evidence-based practices to practitioners. This reflection on the gap takes the position that it is the relevance and fit of the evidence with the majority of practices that limit its applicability and application in health promotion and related behavioural, community and population-level interventions where variations in context, values and norms make uniform interventions inappropriate. To make the evidence more relevant and actionable to practice settings and populations will require reforms at many points in the research-to-practice pipeline. These points in the pipeline are described and remedies for them suggested.

Over-reliance on decontextualized, standardized implementation of efficacy evidence has contributed to slow integration of evidence-based interventions into health policy and practice. This article describes an "evidence integration triangle" (EIT) to guide translation, implementation, prevention efforts, comparative effectiveness research, funding, and policymaking. The EIT emphasizes interactions among three related components needed for effective evidence implementation: (1) practical evidence-based interventions; (2) pragmatic, longitudinal measures of progress; and (3) participatory implementation processes. At the center of the EIT is active engagement of key stakeholders and scientific evidence and attention to the context in which a program is implemented. The EIT model is a straightforward framework to guide practice, research, and policy toward greater effectiveness and is designed to be applicable across multiple levels-from individual-focused and patient-provider interventions, to health systems and policy-level change initiatives., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The promise of widespread implementation of efficacious interventions across the cancer continuum into routine practice and policy has yet to be realized. Multilevel influences, such as communities and families surrounding patients or health-care policies and organizations surrounding provider teams, may determine whether effective interventions are successfully implemented. Greater recognition of the importance of these influences in advancing (or hindering) the impact of single-level interventions has motivated the design and testing of multilevel interventions designed to address them. However, implementing research evidence from single- or multilevel interventions into sustainable routine practice and policy presents substantive challenges. Furthermore, relatively few multilevel interventions have been conducted along the cancer care continuum, and fewer still have been implemented, disseminated, or sustained in practice. The purpose of this chapter is, therefore, to illustrate and examine the concepts underlying the implementation and spread of multilevel interventions into routine practice and policy. We accomplish this goal by using a series of cancer and noncancer examples that have been successfully implemented and, in some cases, spread widely. Key concepts across these examples include the importance of phased implementation, recognizing the need for pilot testing, explicit engagement of key stakeholders within and between each intervention level; visible and consistent leadership and organizational support, including financial and human resources; better understanding of the policy context, fiscal climate, and incentives underlying implementation; explication of handoffs from researchers to accountable individuals within and across levels; ample integration of multilevel theories guiding implementation and evaluation; and strategies for long-term monitoring and sustainability.

Policy makers, researchers, clinicians, and the public are frustrated that research in the health sciences has not resulted in a greater improvement in patient outcomes. Our experience as clinicians and researchers suggests that this frustration could be reduced if health sciences research were directed by 5 broad principles: (1) the needs of patients and populations determine the research agenda; (2) the research agenda addresses contextual and implementation issues, including the development of delivery and accountability systems; (3) the research agenda determines the research methods rather than methods determines the research agenda; (4) researchers and clinicians collaborate to define the research agenda, allocate resources, and implement findings; and (5) the level of funding for implementation research is commensurate with and proportional to the magnitude of the task. To keep the research agenda focused on the task of improving health and to acknowledge that the effort must be seen as more comprehensive than translating or transferring research into practice (TRIP), we suggest that the task be reframed, using the term optimizing practice through research.

Efforts at reducing tobacco use in the United States and Canada over the last half century have been amazingly successful. This article examines those efforts in order to identify policies, programs, and practices found useful in tobacco control that might be usefully disseminated to world populations to improve rates of physical activity. Tobacco-control activities began with efforts to influence the individual smoker through public education and counter-advertising. Increasing awareness of the addictive properties of tobacco, industry efforts to manipulate those properties, and to target youth with aggressive advertising, fueled public outrage that supported additional policy changes to include community interventions, legal actions, and restraints against the tobacco industry. The article first examines ways to view the process of transferring knowledge from one enterprise (reducing tobacco consumption) to another (increasing physical activity). Several theories of knowledge generalization and dissemination are explored: transfer, knowledge utilization, application, diffusion, and implementation. The second section identifies the dissemination of tobacco control by means of brief health behavior-change interventions for smoking cessation that have been successfully integrated into primary clinical care. The question of whether similar strategies can be successfully disseminated to increase physical activity is examined in detail. The article then moves on to look at the success of arguably the most successful program in the world at achieving a reduction in tobacco control-the State of California. Finally, we compare and contrast some of the lessons as they have played out in another national context-Canada. In the concluding section, some lessons are identified that we believe may be successfully utilized in societal attempts to increase physical activity in world populations.

Defining health impact assessment as any combination of procedures or methods by which a proposed policy or program may be judged as to the effect(s) it may have on the health of a population, we make recommendations about how to evaluate the health impact of all government-initiated policies. Such health impact cannot be assessed in the absence of a conceptual or organizing framework that provides the requisite guideposts--population health goals and targets. Health impact assessment offers an approach to ensuring that governments' program and policy initiatives align, or are congruent with, the agreed-upon health goals. It suggests that proposed national policies should be supported or resisted on the basis of their probable influence on the health of populations. In the current Canadian national policy framework, however, there are no underpinnings on which to situate such a process. The specification of consensus goals and objectives with measurable targets can provide the requisite guideposts and benchmarks for health impact assessment. Such an undertaking can set the stage and provide the necessary foundation for an effective health impact assessment process.