From theory to practice: Improving the impact of health services research

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 5, Issue , 2005, Pages

  Brazil, Kevin ^a   Ozer, Elizabeth ^b   Cloutier, Michelle M ^c   Levine, Robert ^d   Stryer, Daniel ^e  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c Children's Medical Center   (United States)

^d MEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^e AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMMUNITY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; THEORETICAL STUDY; ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; COOPERATION; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; MASS COMMUNICATION; PERSONNEL; PUBLIC RELATIONS;

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 14544299644     PISSN: 14726963     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-1     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Lenfant C: Clinical research to clinical practice - lost in translation. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:868-874.
2. Oxman A, Thompson M, Davis D, Haynes B: No magic bullets: A systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ 1995, 153:1423-1431.
3. Cabana M, Rand C, Powe N, Wu M, Abbound P, Rubin H: Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999, 282:1458-1465.
4. Mittman B, Tonesk X, Jacobson P: Implementing clinical practice guidelines: Social influence strategies and practitioner behavior change. QRB Qual Rev Bull 1992, 18:413-422.
5. Lomas J: Retailing research: Increasing the role of evidence in clinical services for childbirth. Milbank Q 1993, 71:439-1373.
6. Funk S, Champagne M, Tornquist E, Wiese R: Administrator's views on barriers to research utilization. ANR 1995, 8:44-49.
7. Lomas J: Improving research dissemination and uptake in the health sector: Beyond the sound of one hand clapping. Health Policy Commentary Series 1997. No C9701 Hamilton, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University.
8. Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Walker A: Changing physicians' behavior: What works and thoughts on getting more things to work. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002, 22:237-243.
9. Foy R, Eccles M, Grimshaw J: Why does primary care need more implementation research? Fam Prac 2001, 18:353-355.
10. Chen H: Theory-driven evaluations Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1990.
11. Weiss C: Evaluation methods for studying programs and policies New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1998.
12. Sidani S, Braden C: Evaluating nursing interventions: A theory-driven approach Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1998.
13. Lipsey M: Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. In In: Research methodology: Strengthening causal interpretations of nonexperimental data: Conference proceedings Edited by: Sechrest L, Perrin E, Bunker J. Washington: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1990:33-51.
14. DeFriese G: Theory as method. In In: Research methodology: Strengthening causal interpretations of nonexperimental data: Conference proceedings Edited by: Sechrest L, Perrin E, Bunker J. Washington: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1990:53-55.
15. Chen H, Rossi P: Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Eval Rev 1983, 7:283-302.
16. Kerlinger F: Foundations of Behavioral Research New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc; 1964.
17. Creswell J: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications; 2003.
18. Sheldon T: It ain't what you do but the way that you do it. J Health Serv Res Policy 2001, 6:3-5.
19. Ferlie E, Shortell S: Improving the quality of health care in the United Kingdom and the United States: A framework for change. Milbank Q 2001, 79:281-315.
20. Wholey J: Assessing the Feasibility and Likely Usefulness of Evaluation. In In: Handbook of practical program evaluation Edited by: Wholey J, Hatry H, Newcomer K. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996:15-39.
21. Cole G: Advancing the development and application of theory-based evaluation in the practice of public health. Am J Eval 1999, 20:453-470.
22. Medical Research Council: A Framework for Development and Evaluation of RCTs for Complex Interventions to Improve Health. MRC Health Services and Public Health Board discussion document 2000.
23. Gitlin L, Lyons K, Kolodner E: A model to build collaborative research or educational teams of health professionals in gerontology. Educ Gerontol 1994:2015-34.
24. Kitson A, Ahmed L, Harvey G, Seers K, Thompson D: From research to practice: One organizational model for promoting research-based practice. J Adv Nurs 1996, 23:430-440.
25. Israel B, Schulz A, Parker E, Becker A: Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health 1998, 19:173-202.
26. Roussos S, Fawcett S: A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annu Rev Public Health 2000, 21:369-402.
27. Levine M, Perkins D: Principles of Community Psychology: Perspectives and Applications New York: Oxford University Press; 1987.
28. Weiss C: Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? In In. Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no 87 Edited by: Rogers P, Hacsi T, Petrosino A, Huebner T. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000:35-45.
29. Huebner T: Theory-based evaluation: Gaining a shared understanding between school staff and evaluators. In In. Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no 87 Edited by: Rogers P, Hacsi T, Petrosino A, Huebner T. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000:79-89.
30. Lipsey M, Pollard J: Driving toward theory in program evaluation: More models to choose from. Eval Program Plann 1989, 12:317-328.
31. Patton M: Utilization-Focused Evaluation 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1996.
32. Pawson R, Tiley N: Realistic Evaluation London: Sage; 1995.
33. Colloton J: Academic medicine's changing covenant with society. Acad Med 1989, 64:55-60.
34. Pew Health Professions Commission: Critical Cchallenges: Revitalizing the Health Professions for the Twenty-first century San Francisco: UCSF: The Center for Health Professions; 1995.
35. MacLeod S, McCullough H: Social science education as a component of medical training. Soc Sci Med 1994, 39:1367-1373.
36. Pranulis M: Research programs in a clinical setting. West J Nurs Res 1991, 13:274-277.
37. Farquhar C, Stryer D, Slutsky J: Translating research into practice: The future ahead. Int J Qual Health Care 2002, 14:233-249.
38. Baker E, Homan S, Schonoff R, Kreuter M: Principles of practice for academic/practice/community research partnerships. Am J Prev Med 1999, 703:74-85.
39. LeGris J, Weir R, Browne G, Gafni A, Stewart L, Easton SL: Developing a model of collaborative research: The complexities and challenges of implementation. Int J Nurs Stud 2000, 37:65-79.