Why Don’t We See More Translation of Health Promotion Research to Practice? Rethinking the Efficacy-to-Effectiveness Transition

TLDR

The gap between research and practice is well documented, and the two research traditions have evolved distinct methods and values, creating inherent differences between efficacy and effectiveness interventions. The study addresses the assumption that effectiveness research naturally follows efficacy research and offers recommendations to close this gap and guide evaluation and adoption of new programs. The authors argue that efficacy studies must address moderating factors limiting robustness across settings, populations, and staff, and that greater attention should be paid to documenting intervention reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Recommendations are offered to close the gap between efficacy and effectiveness research and to guide evaluation and possible adoption of new programs.

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.