Glasgow Russell E, Lichtenstein Edward, Marcus Alfred C
Kaiser Permanente Colorado, USA.
Am J Public Health. 2003 Aug;93(8):1261-7. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.8.1261.
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.
研究与实践之间的差距已有充分记载。我们探讨造成这一差距的一个根本原因：即认为有效性研究自然且逻辑地源自成功的疗效研究这一假设。这两种研究传统发展出了不同的方法和价值观；因此，成功的疗效干预与有效性干预的特征存在内在差异。在疗效研究以及有效性试验中，都需要考虑限制跨环境、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的覆盖范围、采用情况、实施情况和维持情况。本文提出了一些建议，以帮助缩小疗效研究与有效性研究之间的差距，并指导对新方案的评估及可能的采用。
