Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed
<p>Abstract</p> <p>The Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG) authors assert that a key weakness in implementation research is the unknown applicability of a given intervention outside its original site and problem, and suggest that use of expl...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2006-02-01
|
| Series: | Implementation Science |
| Online Access: | http://www.implementationscience.com/content/1/1/5 |
| _version_ | 1818753685858025472 |
|---|---|
| author | Reeves Scott Bhattacharyya Onil Garfinkel Susan Zwarenstein Merrick |
| author_facet | Reeves Scott Bhattacharyya Onil Garfinkel Susan Zwarenstein Merrick |
| author_sort | Reeves Scott |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Abstract</p> <p>The Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG) authors assert that a key weakness in implementation research is the unknown applicability of a given intervention outside its original site and problem, and suggest that use of explicit theory offers an effective solution. This assertion is problematic for three primary reasons. First, the presence of an underlying theory does not necessarily ease the task of judging the applicability of a piece of empirical evidence. Second, it is not clear how to translate theory reliably into intervention design, which undoubtedly involves the diluting effect of "common sense." Thirdly, there are many theories, formal and informal, and it is not clear why any one should be given primacy. To determine whether explicitly theory-based interventions are, on average, more effective than those based on implicit theories, pragmatic trials are needed. Until empirical evidence is available showing the superiority of theory-based interventions, the use of theory should not be used as a basis for assessing the value of implementation studies by research funders, ethics committees, editors or policy decision makers.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-18T05:11:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-3c419cdf01234f1692f76c7d327d8a32 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-5908 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-18T05:11:18Z |
| publishDate | 2006-02-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Implementation Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-3c419cdf01234f1692f76c7d327d8a322022-12-21T21:19:53ZengBMCImplementation Science1748-59082006-02-0111510.1186/1748-5908-1-5Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is neededReeves ScottBhattacharyya OnilGarfinkel SusanZwarenstein Merrick<p>Abstract</p> <p>The Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG) authors assert that a key weakness in implementation research is the unknown applicability of a given intervention outside its original site and problem, and suggest that use of explicit theory offers an effective solution. This assertion is problematic for three primary reasons. First, the presence of an underlying theory does not necessarily ease the task of judging the applicability of a piece of empirical evidence. Second, it is not clear how to translate theory reliably into intervention design, which undoubtedly involves the diluting effect of "common sense." Thirdly, there are many theories, formal and informal, and it is not clear why any one should be given primacy. To determine whether explicitly theory-based interventions are, on average, more effective than those based on implicit theories, pragmatic trials are needed. Until empirical evidence is available showing the superiority of theory-based interventions, the use of theory should not be used as a basis for assessing the value of implementation studies by research funders, ethics committees, editors or policy decision makers.</p>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/1/1/5 |
| spellingShingle | Reeves Scott Bhattacharyya Onil Garfinkel Susan Zwarenstein Merrick Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed Implementation Science |
| title | Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed |
| title_full | Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed |
| title_fullStr | Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed |
| title_full_unstemmed | Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed |
| title_short | Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed |
| title_sort | designing theoretically informed implementation interventions fine in theory but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed |
| url | http://www.implementationscience.com/content/1/1/5 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT reevesscott designingtheoreticallyinformedimplementationinterventionsfineintheorybutevidenceofeffectivenessinpracticeisneeded AT bhattacharyyaonil designingtheoreticallyinformedimplementationinterventionsfineintheorybutevidenceofeffectivenessinpracticeisneeded AT garfinkelsusan designingtheoreticallyinformedimplementationinterventionsfineintheorybutevidenceofeffectivenessinpracticeisneeded AT zwarensteinmerrick designingtheoreticallyinformedimplementationinterventionsfineintheorybutevidenceofeffectivenessinpracticeisneeded |