Research to Practice Translation
Research to practice translation is the process of adapting principles and findings from scientific investigation in order to apply them in real-world practice (Sung et al. 2003; Woolf 2008). The translational process typically proceeds through a series of phases: T1 (translation of fundamental research findings to develop new practical applications), T2 (adaptation of efficacious treatments into a form that is effective in usual practice settings), and T3 (dissemination and implementation of research-tested interventions so that they are taken up widely by care systems and become usual practice). Although T1, T2, and T3 are all part of research to practice translation, the phrase connotes an emphasis on the later stages, particularly T3. The problem addressed is the slow and incomplete uptake of scientific discoveries into clinical and public health practice. Barriers that impede...
References and Further Reading
- Abrams, D. B., Orleans, C. T., Niaura, R., Goldstein, M. G., Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. (1996). Integrating individual and public health perspectives for treatment of tobacco dependence under managed care: A combined stepped care and matching model. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 290–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Balas, E. A., & Boren, S. A. (2000). Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In J. Bemmel & A. T. McCray (Eds.), Yearbook of medical informatics (pp. 65–70). Stuttgart: Schattauer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Bush, V. (1945). Science, the endless frontier: A report to the president by Vannevar Bush, director of the office of scientific research and development. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Department of Health and Human Services & Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. (2009). Report to the president and the congress [Internet]. Washington, DC: HHS; [cited 2011 Jan 11]. Available from http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/cerannualrpt.pdf
- Glasgow, R. E., Klesges, L. M., Dzewaltowski, D. A., Estabrooks, P. A., & Vogt, T. M. (2006). Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: Using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Education Research, 21(3), 688–694.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2005). Health program planning: An educational and ecological approach (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- Institute of Medicine Committee on the NIH Research Priority-Setting Process. (1998). Scientific opportunities and public needs: Improving priority setting and public input at the national institutes of health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015). Reflections on researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1045–1063.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- National Institutes of Health. (2016). FY 2012 – FY 2017 distribution of budget authority percentage for basic and applied research. [Internet] from: https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY16/Basic%20and%20Applied%20FY%202002%20-%20FY%202017%20R2%20-%20V.pdf. Retrieved 7/2/2016.
- National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators 2004 (NSB 04–01). Arlington: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics.Google Scholar
- Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar