PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Nurs Outlook. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3011939
NIHMSID: NIHMS223680

A Thematic Analysis of Theoretical Models for Translational Science in Nursing: Mapping the Field

Sandra A. Mitchell, CRNP, PhD, AOCN,1 Cheryl A. Fisher, RN-BC, EdD,1 Clare E. Hastings, RN, PhD, FAAN,1 Leanne B. Silverman, BA,1 and Gwenyth R. Wallen, RN, PhD1

Abstract

Background

The quantity and diversity of conceptual models in translational science may complicate rather than advance the use of theory.

Purpose

This paper offers a comparative thematic analysis of the models available to inform knowledge development, transfer, and utilization.

Method

Literature searches identified 47 models for knowledge translation. Four thematic areas emerged: (1) evidence-based practice and knowledge transformation processes; (2) strategic change to promote adoption of new knowledge; (3) knowledge exchange and synthesis for application and inquiry; (4) designing and interpreting dissemination research.

Discussion

This analysis distinguishes the contributions made by leaders and researchers at each phase in the process of discovery, development, and service delivery. It also informs the selection of models to guide activities in knowledge translation.

Conclusions

A flexible theoretical stance is essential to simultaneously develop new knowledge and accelerate the translation of that knowledge into practice behaviors and programs of care that support optimal patient outcomes.

Keywords: Translational science, evidence-based practice, knowledge translation, dissemination research, theory

Introduction and Background

There is a burgeoning array of models, definitions, and nomenclature in the field of evidence-based practice (EBP) and translational science. Limited awareness of the range of models and their respective utilities constrains the dissemination and adoption of research findings. Moreover, a lack of conceptual clarity makes it difficult to interpret the results of dissemination research and to synthesize the outcomes of knowledge transfer and utilization activities1. Several authors have 2-8 recently urged attention to conceptual development in the field of knowledge translation.

Our purpose is to contribute to such conceptual development by critically analyzing the available models for EBP and translational science. Thematic analysis was applied to characterize and compare the available conceptual approaches to EBP and translational science. In so doing, we demonstrate the span of available theoretical models for translational science, distinguish the various conceptual approaches, and illustrate how model selection differentially shapes the aims, methods, and outcomes evaluation of a specific knowledge translation initiative. This thematic analysis distills the large number of translational science models into a schema that can be used by clinicians, policy makers, and researchers to guide rational selection of conceptual models for EBP initiatives, organizational efforts to accelerate the adoption of best practices, and the design and interpretation of dissemination and implementation research. An understanding of the full range of conceptual models across the translational science continuum also contributes to mapping the state of knowledge development in a particular substantive content area, thereby highlighting gaps in our knowledge base and framing possible strategies to address those gaps. Such an approach helps to ensure that our scientific agenda remains focused on systematically building a knowledge base across the translational science continuum that is highly relevant to nursing practice and programs of care.

Methods

Articles discussing theoretical models for EBP, knowledge uptake and adoption, and translational science were systematically gathered through electronic searches of PubMED, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Web of Science. Using the key words of translation, translational science, EBP, research utilization, knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, dissemination, implementation, adoption of innovation, and theory, framework, and conceptual model, 830 articles were obtained. An additional 244 articles were identified for review by hand-searching the reference lists and by examining citations identified in the electronic databases as related references. Search strategies were repeated five times during the project as the literature was updated, and results are current to October 2009.

Abstracts of the publications identified through these searches were screened by the first author, a doctorally prepared nurse scientist, to reduce the search results to a core collection for further analysis. Papers selected for further analysis were English language reports, and had as their primary objective:(i) to describe a theoretical model for knowledge translation or translational science, or (ii) to describe a minor or major modification of a previously identified model. Retained publications represented non-duplicate descriptions of theoretical models for EBP; research utilization; knowledge dissemination, translation, or implementation; dissemination research; or translational science. Papers addressing organizational behavior, change theory, or systems theory more generally, rather than knowledge translation explicitly, were excluded.

The non-duplicate publications resulting from the search strategies described above yielded 47 distinct conceptual models addressing EBP and translational science. Two of the authors, both doctorally prepared, independently analyzed the attributes of these 47 conceptual models, extracting from each the (i) purposes, (ii) major constructs, (iii) tenets and assumptions, (iv) logical consistency, generalizability, parsimony, and testability, and (v) utility for translational science. From this critical appraisal, four distinct thematic areas emerged under which the conceptual models could be arranged. Definitions for each of the thematic areas were then developed. The definitions were designed to achieve mutually exclusive yet not exhaustive categories. Ultimately, the goal was to develop an organizing schema that would assist clinicians and researchers, wherever they were engaged along the translational science continuum, to make a coherent match between the aims of a specific initiative and the theoretical model chosen to guide that work.

The classification of models into the thematic categories was independently verified by a third doctorally prepared investigator. Classification discrepancies were discussed among the team members and definitions for each of the four thematic areas were further refined until consensus was achieved. This analysis supported the existence of four themes under which the conceptual models could be organized.

Results and Analysis

Thematic analysis placed the 47 conceptual models into 4 thematic areas representing: (1) EBP, research utilization, and knowledge transformation processes; (2) strategic and organizational change theory to promote uptake and adoption of new knowledge; (3) knowledge exchange and synthesis for application and inquiry; and (4) designing and interpreting dissemination research. The critical attributes of the models within each thematic area and the distribution of the models across the four thematic areas are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1
Models for EBP and Translational Science

Thematic Area 1: EBP, Research Utilization, and Knowledge Transformation Processes

Conceptual models under this thematic area9-16 direct a systematic approach to synthesizing knowledge to improve patient outcomes and the quality of care. Several of the models within this thematic area specify a series of processes designed to: 1) Identify a question/topic/problem in healthcare; 2) retrieve evidence that is relevant to that focus; 3) critically appraise the level and strength of the evidence; and 4) synthesize and apply the evidence to improve clinical outcomes. Other models emphasize the process by which knowledge is transformed from primary research findings into a format (e.g. clinical practice guidelines, technology assessment, standards of care) that has utility for decision-making in clinical practice. Some of the models do address outcomes evaluation, however the measurement of outcomes is designed to determine if a practice change produced the expected clinical outcome or to compare actual with ideal practice (thereby identifying unacceptable practice variation) rather than to understand the mechanism by which the outcome was achieved or to draw conclusions about what interventions are effective in a specific population. Models in this thematic area diverge relative to what constitutes evidence (empirical evidence versus guidelines); what action should be undertaken if there is inadequate evidence; and the extent to which patient/family preferences and practitioner expertise/craft knowledge are prominent.

Thematic Area 2: Strategic/Organizational Change Theory to Promote Uptake and Adoption of New Knowledge

Models within thematic area two17-35 describe the mechanisms by which individual, small group, and organizational contexts affect diffusion, uptake, and adoption of new knowledge and innovation. Many of these models propose that specific interventions—such as facilitation, use of opinion leaders, and real-time feedback about individual or aggregated patient outcomes—positively affect these mechanisms. Feedback to practitioners about their variation from best practice is proposed to promote practitioners' adoption of practices that are based on best evidence. Thus within these models, feedback regarding both patient and practitioner outcomes is seen as a change strategy. Models within this second thematic area address constructs and stakeholders from the perspective of the individual, team/unit, institution, and the healthcare system. An important distinction to note is that the lexicon for this thematic area tends to be directional from researchers to adopters/users; which may inadvertently imply that adopters possess limited knowledge of effective practice, although some models begin to suggest an interaction between researcher and end-user of knowledge.

Thematic Area 3: Knowledge Exchange and Synthesis for Application and Inquiry

Models within the thematic area of knowledge exchange and synthesis for application and inquiry36-45 propose that a formalized process of regular and ongoing interactions among practitioners, researchers, policy makers, and consumers accelerates the application of new discoveries in clinical care. They suggest such interactions also increase the likelihood that researchers will focus on problems of importance to clinicians. Thus, these models simultaneously address both the generation of new knowledge (inquiry) and efforts to make that knowledge available to clinicians, policy makers, and consumers/community in a format that promotes immediate application. In contrast to thematic areas one and two in which the flow of information tends to be directional from researchers to practitioners, models under thematic area three emphasize engaging researchers, practitioners, public policymakers, consumers, and communities in bi-directional collaboration across the translational continuum. This collaboration supports the sharing of expertise and knowledge exchange to strengthen decision-making and action for all involved parties. Creating and sustaining a climate of mutuality and consensus is an essential element of models within this theme.

Thematic Area 4: Designing and Interpreting Dissemination Research

Models in thematic area four7, 46-69 identify aspects that structure the design and interpretation of dissemination research. Dissemination research refers to studies designed to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention in a population and/or to evaluate a process of transferring the knowledge, skill, and systems support needed to deliver an intervention to a target audience57, 70. That target audience could encompass practitioners, healthcare consumers, communities, and public policymakers. Dissemination research develops generalizable empirical evidence to determine the effectiveness of an intervention with widespread application. This approach is distinct from smaller scale studies designed to establish the efficacy of a proposed intervention. As a methodology, dissemination research also determines the best implementation methods to help target audiences receive, accept, and use information and interventions68, 71, 72. Within this thematic area, conceptual models emphasize the measurement of immediate and longer-term patient, process, and system outcomes in order to evaluate intervention effectiveness with widespread application. Dissemination research designs also aim to identify the variables that explain (predict, interact, mediate or moderate) a target audience's awareness, acceptance, and use of knowledge and innovation. Models in thematic area 4 also underscore the importance of addressing intervention fidelity, tailoring, and feasibility (e.g. cost, acceptability to patients, adherence, satisfaction etc.) when studying wide-scale implementation of an intervention.

Summary Observations

Diversity in the origins, development, and reach of conceptual models is evident. Within the four thematic areas, the models and their underlying concepts are specified at varying levels of precision, abstraction, complexity, and scope. Some models are linear and directional, while others demonstrate a non-linear, multi-directional, or cyclical pattern of divergent and convergent activities. Though the EBP/RU models were found predominantly in the nursing literature, models within the other three thematic areas crossed several disciplines including health services research, behavioral science, and organizational psychology. We also observed differences among the models relative to whether they were developed empirically and inductively20, 34, 44, 50, deductively and based on theoretical propositions17, 25, 27, 36, 55, or whether a combination of inductive and deductive processes were used32, 37, 48. Although there were notable exceptions21, 41, 73, few of the models have been explicitly tested.

Fit of the Four Thematic Areas with the Overarching Translational Science Continuum

The four thematic areas can be arranged within the overarching translational science continuum74. As depicted in Figure 1, the translational science continuum provides an overview of the process by which discoveries are generated, developed, and implemented into effective and widely available clinical applications. A number of representations of the translational research process have been proposed70, 75-80. Although there is variation among these representations relative to terminology and the number of identified phases, all describe a recursive sequence of activities from basic science discoveries through adoption in routine clinical practice81. Factors that impede the transfer of research to application may be historic, political, economic, scientific, cultural, or organizational33, 67, 82, 83.

Figure 1
Activities to accelerate discovery, development, and delivery across the translational research continuum

A wide variety of activities are encompassed by the translational science continuum including comparative effectiveness research, implementation research, dissemination, diffusion, knowledge transfer, uptake, research utilization, adoption, and sustainability. The lack of standardized terminology reflects the fact that translational science is a nascent and multidimensional field incorporating many disciplines and organizations, both within the health sciences, and in the fields of marketing, communication, education, and management84-86. Table 2 provides definitions for selected key terms.

Table 2
Terminology for dissemination and implementation research in the health sciences

Familiarity with models across the translational science continuum is a fundamental requirement if we are to take an encompassing view of a process that spans scientific discovery, the development of those discoveries into novel interventions, and the implementation of those innovations by practitioners, policy makers, and communities. Our thematic framework for organizing the diverse range of conceptual approaches to knowledge development and translation assists researchers, practitioners, and change agents when selecting a model to guide a specific initiative in translational science. For example, when planning activities to promote knowledge uptake, depending upon their purposes and the stakeholders involved, an individual or organization might select from among EBP/RU models or strategic change models. On the other hand, if partnering with researchers, policy makers, or communities, one of the models addressing knowledge exchange and synthesis for application and inquiry might be most useful.

The thematic areas can also be applied to structure empiric findings within a particular area, thereby highlighting gaps that exist in that knowledge base. In this way, the thematic areas facilitate identification of challenges across the knowledge translation continuum which require greater scientific and programmatic attention. Knowledge of the different approaches encompassed by each thematic area also contributes to framing the scope of an issue and to developing specific hypotheses that can be empirically tested.

The four thematic areas also distinguish the contributions made by researchers and by end users (clinicians, policy makers, communities, or patients) at each phase along the translational science continuum from discovery through development, dissemination, and implementation in practice. Each of the thematic areas also differentially focuses on design, implementation, and evaluation considerations relative to scientific discovery, early and late translation, and dissemination and adoption of new approaches. Using the issue of tobacco cessation, we demonstrate this capacity of the thematic areas to inform problem framing, and we illustrate how each thematic area is associated with a distinct emphasis and different action strategies.

Application of the Transtheoretical Approach to Knowledge Development and Translation: Tobacco Cessation as an Example

Tobacco use, in all its forms, including smokeless tobacco, is a significant health behavior concern affecting children, adolescents, and adults and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. However, despite these serious health consequences and a substantial body of scientific knowledge concerning effective strategies for prevention and cessation of tobacco use across settings (schools, communities, clinics, and hospitals), the prevalence of tobacco use worldwide is increasing. Literature in the field of tobacco prevention and cessation illustrates how theoretical approaches within each thematic area differentially frame the strategies to develop and implement knowledge to achieve tobacco abstinence.

Relative to an EBP, research utilization, and knowledge transformation processes approach (thematic area 1), activities in the field of tobacco cessation have included critically appraising and synthesizing the research evidence concerning effective strategies for tobacco cessation87, 88, developing and distributing evidence-based guidelines for clinical intervention89-91, devising an interdisciplinary tobacco cessation protocol for inpatients92, refining the measurement of clinical outcomes of smoking cessation programs93, and developing curricula for health-professional education94, 95. Such knowledge synthesis efforts are fundamental in bridging from late translation to dissemination and adoption63. Specific knowledge synthesis formats can be subsequently tested, compared, and refined through dissemination research. The dissemination of practice guidelines and narrative reviews also contributes more generally to building system capacity for the delivery of smoking cessation interventions96.

Approaches to promote uptake of research findings through specific interventions such as expert facilitation97, audit and feedback98, decision-support delivered at the point of-care99-101, and the use of opinion leaders and policy changes 102-104 (thematic area 2) have demonstrated effectiveness in increasing the adoption of tobacco cessation interventions into routine clinical practice. Such approaches focus on the processes of strategic and organizational change and give limited attention to measuring intervention effectiveness (e.g. initial and long-term smoking abstinence rates).

Models that emphasize knowledge exchange and synthesis for application and inquiry (thematic area 3) formalize a bidirectional collaboration process among researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and consumers/communities. As an outcome of this collaboration, technology and expertise relative to tobacco cessation are exchanged to benefit decision-making and action for all involved stakeholders. As an example of this, a recent report describes a community of practice that developed around web-assisted tobacco interventions105. Engaging a variety of disciplines, and representing clinicians, researchers, consumers, and policy makers, collaboration in the community of practice produced a recommended minimum dataset of items for use in web-assisted tobacco interventions, guidelines for developing web-assisted tobacco interventions, and a strategy to engage consumers. These outcomes simultaneously enriched the delivery of web-assisted tobacco intervention, improved linkages among participants in the network, and strengthened the research infrastructure. McDonald and Viehbeck have also described a collaborative model of research translation for tobacco cessation known as The North American Quitline Consortium (www.naquitline.org)106. Comprised of researchers and program providers from Canada and the United States, the consortium collectively focuses on developing and sharing evidence to improve telephone-based counseling for tobacco cessation. Strategic goals and priorities for the consortium are mutually negotiated through web-based seminars, teleconferences and face-to-face meetings. Topics for discussion include, but are not limited to, potential funding opportunities, clinical and research outcomes evaluation, and identification of gaps in the current evidence base for tobacco cessation intervention comparative effectiveness106.

Exemplifying the application of models emphasizing elements in the design and interpretation of dissemination research (thematic area 4) are three recent studies that examined the effectiveness of delivering smoking cessation interventions in inpatient settings107, 108 and primary care practices109 within single-payer networks. Across the studies, a variety of approaches were deployed to promote clinicians' routine delivery of smoking cessation interventions, including training of providers in the delivery of bedside smoking cessation counseling, electronic medical record innovations to facilitate prescription of pharmacotherapy for cessation, computerized referral of motivated inpatients for telephone counseling, and practice facilitation, expert feedback, and monitoring. Intervention effectiveness was assessed by initial and prolonged smoking abstinence rates, likelihood of receiving a prescription for pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation (the ‘reach’ of the intervention), and the incremental costs per quitter. In addition, researchers evaluated the process of transferring to practitioners the attitudes, knowledge, skills, and system supports required. Implementation outcomes, such as the barriers and facilitators to clinicians' implementation of smoking cessation guidelines and the factors mediating the adoption of recommended practices (e.g. clinician self-efficacy for providing smoking cessation) were also examined.

Dissemination research outcomes suggested by models within thematic area four and evaluated in studies of tobacco cessation interventions include implementation fidelity, treatment potency, patient and clinician acceptability or satisfaction with the interventions, and cost effectiveness 110-112. Illustrating this, Kobus and Mermelstein describe the Partners with Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURCs) Partners initiative113. The initiative was developed to fill the gap between scientific discovery and research translation, extending basic and applied research in tobacco cessation through studies that examine the policy and practice implications of specific tobacco cessation interventions. The research emphasizes the extent to which findings from tobacco dependence studies are transferable to real-world settings and serve to enhance policy development. For example, TTURC Partners' studies have explored the factors associated with physicians' receptivity to adopt novel smoking cessation approaches into practice, and have examined the health economics of tobacco cessation from the perspective of the employer (e.g. impact of cessation on worker productivity and reduced healthcare expenditures)113. Ritzwoller and colleagues have similarly described the importance of including cost analyses in trials of smoking cessation interventions in order to develop more precise and generalizable implementation cost estimates for behavioral interventions, since settings can have unique needs relative to intervention resources114.

Discussion and Implications

We have argued that despite an expanding number of conceptual models, theoretical development relative to EBP, knowledge utilization, and translational science in nursing has been attenuated. There is an abundance of terminologies in use, sometimes employing the same terms with somewhat differing meanings115. Yet, without conceptual clarity, this expanding literature base complicates rather than advances the use of theory in translational research. Using comparative analysis, our purpose has been to illuminate the span of theoretical models available to inform knowledge development, transfer, and utilization. This analysis has also attempted to map the significant convergences among conceptual models within each thematic area and the linkages among thematic areas. Further, it has advanced the recommendation that an eclectic, pluralistic approach to model usage is necessary to accelerate the development of new knowledge and the application of evidence by practitioners and policymakers.

We acknowledge that in an effort to place the models within discrete categories, we may have enlarged the separation between the thematic areas. Each identified thematic area is not fully discrete, and several of the models incorporate elements from more than one thematic area. For example, most models that focus primarily on EBP and the transformation of research findings into knowledge useful for clinical practice also mention the importance of the change process and facilitation (e.g. EBP mentors116-118, organizational readiness119, factors that affect the adoption of innovation11, and the importance of a supportive infrastructure120). However, EBP models are not explicitly focused on providing theory that explains the mechanisms for uptake and adoption, as in thematic area 2, or the mechanisms for awareness and acceptance of an innovation, as in thematic area 4.

The conceptual model selected to guide a specific knowledge translation initiative substantially influences the aims, design, methods and evaluation of outcomes1, 121 21. Science leaders should carefully examine the phenomenon of interest and select models that address all aspects of a phenomenon. For example, the singular use of models that emphasize the problem-solving approach of EBP may fail to fully account for the processes of strategic change and aspects of organizational climate and culture that impact the adoption of innovation. Moreover, at specific stages in the translational science continuum, models from one thematic area may perform better than those from another thematic area. For example, models that emphasize the design of dissemination research or those that emphasize the process of strategic change may offer greater specificity in selecting variables and interpreting study results than models that emphasize the process of bidirectional exchange between researchers and clinicians. On the other hand, where integration and dialogue across disciplinary boundaries is needed, models emphasizing knowledge exchange, synthesis, and application might be most suitable. A thoughtful, flexible approach to model selection is necessary to advance the use of theory in translational science.

While there are multiple models for EBP and substantial areas of convergence across those models, less attention has been given to theoretical development in the areas of knowledge exchange and dissemination research. The results of this analysis can be incorporated to promote continued evolution of the current models for EBP, and to encourage theoretical developments that promote a level of multi-directional engagement among all stakeholders (practitioners, consumers, administrators, policy-makers, community leaders, and researchers) and benefit decision-making for all involved parties. Several recent papers summarizing the state of the science in treating tobacco dependence122, proposing an agenda for tobacco dependence research123, and outlining an agenda for public policy in the area of tobacco cessation124, 125 offer examples of this capacity for the thematic areas to promote problem framing and policymaking.

The prominence of EBP models in the nursing literature raises the question as to whether the discipline's approach to translational science has been constrained by an overemphasis on models in thematic area 1. We do not suggest that as nursing reaches higher levels of scholarly engagement in translational science that models focused on EBP or on strategic change to promote adoption of knowledge are abandoned. Rather, we urge leaders to use theory as a tool for translational science and to apply a flexible theoretical stance to guide their work. Evolution towards a pluralistic conceptual approach for translational science encompasses both strategies to facilitate practitioners' efficient access to research evidence and point-of-care decision support, together with interventions to sustain an organizational culture that is ‘research-minded’ 8, 121, 126. Flexible pluralism also supports the development of actionable messages for decision-makers such as public policy makers, health managers, and corporate executives, the development of knowledge uptake skills in target audiences and knowledge transfer skills in research organizations, and the systematic evaluation of the impact of knowledge translation activities by both service delivery and research organizations. Thus, a pluralistic approach gives simultaneous attention to creating organizational cultures and climates that favor the adoption of innovation, and to strategies that create greater proximity, dialogue, and affinity between the generation of knowledge by researchers and its application by health professionals, patients, communities, and public policymakers127, 128. Within a stance of theoretical pluralism, leaders consciously select, depending upon setting, context, and purpose, from this full range of theoretical models to guide translational science efforts.

Adoption of a pluralistic theoretical approach to translation has implications for clinicians, administrators, educators, and researchers. For clinicians seeking to improve clinical outcomes through the application of best evidence, EBP and research utilization models offer a systematic approach to clinical decision-making129. However, one limitation of these models is that many place comparatively less emphasis on outcomes evaluation and on the features of an organization that promote the adoption of innovation.

Advanced practice nurses and nurse researchers can utilize the thematic areas to provide context for their respective involvements in knowledge translation efforts. For example, models in thematic area 3 that emphasize a bi-directional collaboration between researchers, clinicians, and policy-makers offer a useful context for researcher-clinician collaboration in tailoring and then testing an intervention in a naturalistic setting.

Theoretical pluralism is a particularly essential skill for the researcher. Sales, Smith, Curran, and Kochevar have argued that without explicit attention to theory, study findings are difficult to interpret, and essential implementation strategies needed to promote a practice change may be overlooked121, 130. Researchers can use models in thematic area 4 to identify the mediators, moderators, and outcomes that should be examined when testing the effectiveness of an intervention in a population, or to distinguish in an implementation trial, the individual and organizational features that promote adoption of an innovation into routine care settings47.

While we and others3, 4, 7, 27, 121, 131, 132 have attempted to place some conceptual structure and parsimony on the large number of available models for EBP and translational science, there remains a need for these models to be tested and refined through empirical study. There is also a continued need for nursing, as a discipline, to give attention to the lexicon for translational science. Within the field of translational science more generally, there are considerable inconsistencies in terminology and meaning84, 133. Evolving a shared understanding of these inconsistencies within and across research/practice sectors will take interdisciplinary collaboration, and such efforts are in progress4, 8, 134-137. However to contribute effectively to that dialogue, nursing leaders must be equipped with a sufficiently broad and nuanced understanding of the concepts, terminology, and controversies within and across practice and research sectors. Lastly, graduate curricula must include an exposure to both the theory base138-141 and the methods83, 142-150 for translational science so that emerging leaders are equipped to take a flexible conceptual approach to research design, leadership, and change management across the translation continuum.

Conclusion

This thematic analysis maps the diversity of conceptual approaches to translational science. It arranges the models into thematic areas, making it easier for leaders and researchers to access theory and to narrow or broaden the set of models they consider to guide their work. Rational selection of a conceptual model to guide a specific initiative in translational science is predicated on familiarity with models in all four thematic areas. Knowledge translation theories for the health sciences are in need of continued testing and refinement. At the same time, fostering theoretical pluralism is essential if we are to simultaneously advance EBP and translational science. This flexible, pluralistic approach may also mitigate the individual and organizational challenges encountered in translating evidence into practice behaviors and programs of care that optimize individual and community health outcomes.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Josanne Revoir, RN, MS, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center for her assistance with development of figures. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, Nursing Research and Translational Science, Nursing and Patient Care Services.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

1. Graham ID, Tetroe JM. Implementation of evidence. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009;7:157–8. [PubMed]
2. Marteau TM, Sowden AJ, Armstrong D. Implementing research findings into practice: Beyond the information deficit model. In: Haines A, Donald A, editors. Getting research findings into practice. London: BMJ Books; 2002. pp. 68–76.
3. Estabrooks CA. Mapping the research utilization field in nursing. Can J Nurs Res. 2009 Mar;41:218–36. [PubMed]
4. Estabrooks CA, Thompson DS, Lovely JJ, Hofmeyer A. A guide to knowledge translation theory. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26:25–36. [PubMed]
5. Rycroft-Malone J. Theory and knowledge translation: Setting some coordinates. Nurs Res. 2007 Jul-Aug;56:S78–85. [PubMed]
6. Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: The use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Feb;58:107–12. [PubMed]
7. Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: A thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009 Jul;14:156–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Kitson A. Knowledge translation and guidelines: A transfer, translation or transformation process? Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009;7:124–39. [PubMed]
9. Horsley JA, Crane J, Crabtree MK, Wood DJ. Chapter 1: Introduction. Using research to improve nursing practice: A guide CURN project. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton; 1983. pp. 1–10.
10. Newhouse RP, Dearholt SL, Poe SS, Pugh LC, White KM. Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice model and guidelines. Indianapolis: Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing; 2007.
11. Stevens KR. ACE Star Model of EBP: Knowledge Transformation. 2004. [cited June 6, 2010]; Available from: www.acestar.uthscsa.edu.
12. Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E. Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2005.
13. Titler MG, Kleiber C, Steelman VJ, Rakel BA, Budreau G, Everett LQ, et al. The Iowa model of evidence-based practice to promote quality care. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2001 Dec;13:497–509. [PubMed]
14. Stetler CB. Updating the Stetler model of research utilization to facilitate evidence-based practice. Nurs Outlook. 2001 Nov-Dec;49:272–9. [PubMed]
15. Rosswurm MA, Larrabee JH. A model for change to evidence-based practice. Image J Nurs Sch. 1999;31:317–22. [PubMed]
16. Tolson D, Booth J, Lowndes A. Achieving evidence-based nursing practice: Impact of the Caledonian Development Model. J Nurs Manag. 2008 Sep;16:682–91. [PubMed]
17. Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Cockerill R, Barnsley J, DiCenso A. A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice. Online J Knowl Synth Nurs. 2002 Nov 18;9:7. [PubMed]
18. Harvey G, Loftus-Hills A, Rycroft-Malone J, Titchen A, Kitson A, McCormack B, et al. Getting evidence into practice: The role and function of facilitation. J Adv Nurs. 2002 Mar;37:577–88. [PubMed]
19. McCormack B, Kitson A, Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Titchen A, Seers K. Getting evidence into practice: The meaning of ‘context’ J Adv Nurs. 2002 Apr;38:94–104. [PubMed]
20. Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T. Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: Literature review and Delphi study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004 Apr;16:107–23. [PubMed]
21. Kitson AL, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A. Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: Theoretical and practical challenges. Implement Sci. 2008 Jan;3:1. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Rycroft-Malone J. The PARIHS framework—a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004 Oct-Dec;19:297–304. [PubMed]
23. Rycroft-Malone J, Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A, et al. Ingredients for change: Revisiting a conceptual framework. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Jun;11:174–80. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Vratny A, Shriver D. A conceptual model for growing evidence-based practice. Nurs Adm Q. 2007 Apr-Jun;31:162–70. [PubMed]
25. Doran DM, Sidani S. Outcomes-focused knowledge translation: A framework for knowledge translation and patient outcomes improvement. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4:3–13. [PubMed]
26. Weiner BJ, Lewis MA, Linnan LA. Using organization theory to understand the determinants of effective implementation of worksite health promotion programs. Health Educ Res. 2009 Apr;24:292–305. [PubMed]
27. Graham ID, Tetroe J. Some theoretical underpinnings of knowledge translation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Nov;14:936–41. [PubMed]
28. Logan J, Graham ID. Toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary model of health care research use. Sci Commun. 1998;20:227–46.
29. Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5th. New York: Free Press; 1995.
30. Davis SM, Peterson JC, Helfrich CD, Cunningham-Sabo L. Introduction and conceptual model for utilization of prevention research. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Jul;33:S1–5. [PubMed]
31. Peterson JC, Rogers EM, Cunningham-Sabo L, Davis SM. A framework for research utilization applied to seven case studies. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Jul;33:S21–34. [PubMed]
32. Jacobson N, Butterill D, Goering P. Development of a framework for knowledge translation: Understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Apr;8:94–9. [PubMed]
33. Stetler C, Ritchie J, Rycroft-Malone J, Schultz A, Charns M. Improving quality of care through routine, successful implementation of evidence-based practice at the bedside: An organizational case study protocol using the Pettigrew and Whipp model of strategic change. Implement Sci. 2007;2:3. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Edgar L, Herbert R, Lambert S, MacDonald JA, Dubois S, Latimer M. The joint venture model of knowledge utilization: A guide for change in nursing. Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont) 2006 May;19:41–55. [PubMed]
35. Mendel P, Meredith LS, Schoenbaum M, Sherbourne CD, Wells KB. Interventions in organizational and community context: a framework for building evidence on dissemination and implementation in health services research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008 Mar;35:21–37. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. Baumbusch JL, Kirkham SR, Khan KB, McDonald H, Semeniuk P, Tan E, et al. Pursuing common agendas: A collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings. Res Nurs Health. 2008 Apr;31:130–40. [PubMed]
37. Swinburn B, Gill T, Kumanyika S. Obesity prevention: A proposed framework for translating evidence into action. Obes Rev. 2005 Feb;6:23–33. [PubMed]
38. Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW. Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85:729–68. [PubMed]
39. Armstrong R, Waters E, Roberts H, Oliver S, Popay J. The role and theoretical evolution of knowledge translation and exchange in public health. J Public Health (Oxf) 2006 Dec;28:384–9. [PubMed]
40. Brachaniec M, Tillier W, Dell F. The Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (IMHA) knowledge exchange task force: An innovative approach to knowledge translation. JCCA J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2006 Mar;50:8–13. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26:13–24. [PubMed]
42. Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA. Introduction to methods in community-based participatory research for health. In: Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, editors. Methods in community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005. pp. 3–26.
43. Wandersman A, Duffy J, Flaspohler P, Noonan R, Lubell K, Stillman L, et al. Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008 Jun;41:171–81. [PubMed]
44. Robinson K, Elliott SJ, Driedger SM, Eyles J, O'Loughlin J, Riley B, et al. Using linking systems to build capacity and enhance dissemination in heart health promotion: A Canadian multiple-case study. Health Educ Res. 2005;20:499–513. [PubMed]
45. Anderson M, Cosby J, Swan B, Moore H, Broekhoven M. The use of research in local health service agencies. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Oct;49:1007–19. [PubMed]
46. Kraft JM, Mezoff JS, Sogolow ED, Neumann MS, Thomas PA. A technology transfer model for effective HIV/AIDS interventions: Science and practice. AIDS Educ Prev. 2000;12:7–20. [PubMed]
47. Yano EM. The role of organizational research in implementing evidence-based practice: QUERI Series. Implement Sci. 2008 May;3:29. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
48. Elwyn G, Taubert M, Kowalczuk J. Sticky knowledge: A possible model for investigating implementation in healthcare contexts. Implement Sci. 2007;2:44. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
49. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14:26–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
50. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82:581–629. [PubMed]
51. Demakis JG, McQueen L, Kizer KW, Feussner JR. Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI): A collaboration between research and clinical practice. Med Care. 2000 Jun;38:I17–25. [PubMed]
52. McQueen L, Mittman BS, Demakis JG. Overview of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004 Sep-Oct;11:339–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
53. Hagedorn H, Hogan M, Smith JL, Bowman C, Curran GM, Espadas D, et al. Lessons learned about implementing research evidence into clinical practice. Experiences from VA QUERI. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21 2:S21–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
54. Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Estabrooks PA, Brock E. RE-AIM: Evidence-based standards and a web resource to improve translation of research into practice. Ann Behav Med. 2004;28:75–80. [PubMed]
55. Kilbourne AM, Neumann MS, Pincus HA, Bauer MS, Stall R. Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care: Application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implement Sci. 2007;2:42. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
56. The Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG) Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implement Sci. 2006;1:4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57. Kerner J, Rimer B, Emmons K. Introduction to the special section on dissemination: Dissemination research and research dissemination: How can we close the gap? Health Psychol. 2005;24:443–6. [PubMed]
58. Kerner JF. Knowledge translation versus knowledge integration: A “funder's” perspective. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26:72–80. [PubMed]
59. Kerner JF, Guirguis-Blake J, Hennessy KD, Brounstein PJ, Vinson C, Schwartz RH, et al. Translating research into improved outcomes in comprehensive cancer control. Cancer Causes and Control. 2005;16:27–40. [PubMed]
60. Bhattacharyya O, Reeves S, Garfinkel S, Zwarenstein M. Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions: Fine in theory, but evidence of effectiveness in practice is needed. Implement Sci. 2006;1:5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
61. Elliott SJ, O'Loughlin J, Robinson K, Eyles J, Cameron R, Harvey D, et al. Conceptualizing dissemination research and activity: The case of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative. Health Educ Behav. 2003 Jun;30:267–82. discussion 83-6. [PubMed]
62. Ogilvie D, Craig P, Griffin S, Macintyre S, Wareham NJ. A translational framework for public health research. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:116. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
63. Fleming ES, Perkins J, Easa D, Conde JG, Baker RS, Southerland WM, et al. The role of translational research in addressing health disparities: A conceptual framework. Ethn Dis. 2008 Spring;18:S2-155–60. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
64. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
65. Orlandi MA. Health promotion technology transfer: Organizational perspectives. Can J Public Health. 1996 Nov-Dec;87 2:S28–33. [PubMed]
66. Majdzadeh R, Sadighi J, Nejat S, Mahani AS, Gholami J. Knowledge translation for research utilization: Design of a knowledge translation model at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008 Fall;28:270–7. [PubMed]
67. Green LW, Ottoson JM, Garcia C, Hiatt RA. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009 Apr 29;30:151–74. [PubMed]
68. Stetler CB, McQueen L, Demakis J, Mittman BS. An organizational framework and strategic implementation for system-level change to enhance research-based practice: QUERI Series. Implement Sci. 2008;3:30. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
69. Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008 Apr;34:228–43. [PubMed]
70. Rohrbach LA, Grana R, Sussman S, Valente TW. Type II translation: Transporting prevention interventions from research to real-world settings. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29:302–33. [PubMed]
71. Lomas J, Haynes RB. A taxonomy and critical review of tested strategies for the application of clinical practice recommendations: From ‘official’ to ‘individual’ clinical policy. Am J Prev Med. 1988;4:77–94. [PubMed]
72. Meyer G. Diffusion methodology: time to innovate? J Health Commun. 2004;9 1:59–69. [PubMed]
73. Doran DM, Mylopoulos J, Kushniruk A, Nagle L, Laurie-Shaw B, Sidani S, et al. Evidence in the palm of your hand: Development of an outcomes-focused knowledge translation intervention. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4:69–77. [PubMed]
74. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. President's Cancer Panel 2004-2005 Annual Report- Translating Research into Cancer Care: Delivering on the promise. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2005.
75. Cripe TP, Thomson B, Boat TF, Williams DA. Promoting translational research in academic health centers: Navigating the “roadmap” Acad Med. 2005;80:1012–8. [PubMed]
76. Crowley WF, Jr, Sherwood L, Salber P, Scheinberg D, Slavkin H, Tilson H, et al. Clinical research in the United States at a crossroads: Proposal for a novel public-private partnership to establish a national clinical research enterprise. JAMA. 2004 Mar 3;291:1120–6. [PubMed]
77. Hörig H, Pullman W. From bench to clinic and back: Perspective on the 1st IQPC Translational Research Conference. J Transl Med. 2004;2:44. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
78. Sung NS, Crowley WF, Jr, Genel M, Salber P, Sandy L, Sherwood LM, et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA. 2003 Mar 12;289:1278–87. [PubMed]
79. Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA. 2008 Jan 9;299:211–3. [PubMed]
80. Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research—“Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap. JAMA. 2007 Jan 24;297:403–6. [PubMed]
81. Sussman S, Valente TW, Rohrbach LA, Skara S, Pentz MA. Translation in the health professions: Converting science into action. Eval Health Prof. 2006 Mar;29:7–32. [PubMed]
82. Ellis P, Ciliska DK, Sussman J, Robinson P, Armour T, Brouwers M, et al. A systematic review of studies evaluating diffusion and dissemination of selected cancer control interventions. Health Psychol. 2005;24:488–500. [PubMed]
83. Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Kerner JF, Glasgow RE. Methodologic challenges in disseminating evidence-based interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2006 Oct;31:S24–34. [PubMed]
84. Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Kreuter MW, Weaver NL. A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008 Mar-Apr;14:117–23. [PubMed]
85. Dearing JW. Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008 Mar-Apr;14:99–108. [PubMed]
86. Green LW, Johnson JL. Dissemination and utilization of health promotion and disease prevention knowledge: Theory, research and experience. Can J Public Health. 1996 Nov-Dec;87 2:S11–7. [PubMed]
87. McIvor A, Kayser J, Assaad JM, Brosky G, Demarest P, Desmarais P, et al. Best practices for smoking cessation interventions in primary care. Can Respir J. 2009 Jul-Aug;16:129–34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
88. Schmelzle J, Rosser WW, Birtwhistle R. Update on pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for smoking cessation. Can Fam Physician. 2008 Jul;54:994–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
89. Counseling and interventions to prevent tobacco use and tobacco-caused disease in adults and pregnant women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Apr 21;150:551–5. [PubMed]
90. Hays JT, Ebbert JO, Sood A. Treating tobacco dependence in light of the 2008 US Department of Health and Human Services clinical practice guideline. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009 Aug;84:730–5. quiz 5-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
91. Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update U.S. Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guideline executive summary. Respir Care. 2008 Sep;53:1217–22. [PubMed]
92. Ginn MB, Cox G, Heath J. Evidence-based approach to an inpatient tobacco cessation protocol. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2008 Jul-Sep;19:268–78. quiz 79-80. [PubMed]
93. Stevens KR, Munoz LR. Cigarette smoking: Evidence to guide measurement. Res Nurs Health. 2004 Aug;27:281–92. [PubMed]
94. Heath J, Andrews J. Using evidence-based educational strategies to increase knowledge and skills in tobacco cessation. Nurs Res. 2006 Jul-Aug;55:S44–50. [PubMed]
95. Prochaska JJ, Fromont SC, Leek D, Suchanek Hudmon K, Louie AK, Jacobs MH, et al. Evaluation of an evidence-based tobacco treatment curriculum for psychiatry residency training programs. Acad Psychiatry. 2008 Nov-Dec;32:484–92. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
96. Mitchell EN, Hawkshaw BN, Naylor CJ, Soewido D, Sanders JM. Enabling the NSW health workforce to provide evidence-based smoking-cessation advice through competency-based training delivered via video conferencing. N S W Public Health Bull. 2008 Mar-Apr;19:56–9. [PubMed]
97. Aspy CB, Mold JW, Thompson DM, Blondell RD, Landers PS, Reilly KE, et al. Integrating screening and interventions for unhealthy behaviors into primary care practices. Am J Prev Med. 2008 Nov;35:S373–80. [PubMed]
98. Hysong SJ, Best RG, Pugh JA. Audit and feedback and clinical practice guideline adherence: Making feedback actionable. Implement Sci. 2006;1:1–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
99. Bakken S, Roberts WD, Chen E, Dilone J, Lee NJ, Mendonca E, et al. PDA-based informatics strategies for tobacco use screening and smoking cessation management: A case study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129:1447–51. [PubMed]
100. Downs SM, Zhu V, Anand V, Biondich PG, Carroll AE. The CHICA smoking cessation system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008:166–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
101. Marcy TW, Kaplan B, Connolly SW, Michel G, Shiffman RN, Flynn BS. Developing a decision support system for tobacco use counselling using primary care physicians. Inform Prim Care. 2008;16:101–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
102. McAlister FA, Fradette M, Graham M, Majumdar SR, Ghali WA, Williams R, et al. A randomized trial to assess the impact of opinion leader endorsed evidence summaries on the use of secondary prevention strategies in patients with coronary artery disease: The ESP-CAD trial protocol [NCT00175240] Implement Sci. 2006;1:11. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
103. Muramoto ML, Connolly T, Strayer LJ, Ranger-Moore J, Blatt W, Leischow R, et al. Tobacco cessation skills certification in Arizona: Application of a state wide, community based model for diffusion of evidence based practice guidelines. Tob Control. 2000 Dec;9:408–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
104. Brink SG, Basen-Engquist KM, O'Hara-Tompkins NM, Parcel GS, Gottlieb NH, Lovato CY. Diffusion of an effective tobacco prevention program. Part I: Evaluation of the dissemination phase. Health Educ Res. 1995 Sep;10:283–95. [PubMed]
105. Norman CD, Huerta T. Knowledge transfer & exchange through social networks: Building foundations for a community of practice within tobacco control. Implement Sci. 2006;1:1–11. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
106. McDonald PW, Viehbeck S. From evidence-based practice making to practice-based evidence making: creating communities of (research) and practice. Health Promot Pract. 2007 Apr;8:140–4. [PubMed]
107. Miller NH. Translating smoking cessation research findings into clinical practice: The “staying free” program. Nurs Res. 2006 Jul-Aug;55:S38–43. [PubMed]
108. Katz DA, Vander Weg M, Fu S, Prochazka A, Grant KM, Buchanan L, et al. A before-after implementation trial of smoking cessation guidelines in hospitalized veterans. Implement Sci. 2009 Sep 10;4:58. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
109. Yano EM, Rubenstein LV, Farmer MM, Chernof BA, Mittman BS, Lanto AB, et al. Targeting primary care referrals to smoking cessation clinics does not improve quit rates: Implementing evidence-based interventions into practice. Health Serv Res. 2008 Jun 3; [PMC free article] [PubMed]
110. Collins SE, Eck S, Kick E, Schroter M, Torchalla I, Batra A. Implementation of a smoking cessation treatment integrity protocol: Treatment discriminability, potency and manual adherence. Addict Behav. 2009 May;34:477–80. [PubMed]
111. Horn K, Dino G, Hamilton C, Noerachmanto N, Zhang J. Feasibility of a smoking cessation intervention for teens in the emergency department: Reach, implementation fidelity, and acceptability. Am J Crit Care. 2008 May;17:205–16. [PubMed]
112. Sterling K, Curry S, Sporer A, Emery S, Mermelstein R. Implementation fidelity of packaged teen smoking cessation treatments delivered in community-based settings. Health Educ Res. 2009 Oct 6; [PMC free article] [PubMed]
113. Kobus K, Mermelstein R. Bridging basic and clinical science with policy studies: The Partners with Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers experience. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009 May;11:467–74. [PubMed]
114. Ritzwoller DP, Sukhanova A, Gaglio B, Glasgow RE. Costing behavioral interventions: a practical guide to enhance translation. Ann Behav Med. 2009 Apr;37:218–27. [PubMed]
115. Davies H, Nutley S, Walter I. Why ‘knowledge transfer’ is misconceived for applied social research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Jul;13:188–90. [PubMed]
116. Stetler C, Legro M, Rycroft-Malone J, Bowman C, Curran G, Guihan M, et al. Role of “external facilitation” in implementation of research findings: A qualitative evaluation of facilitation experiences in the Veterans Health Administration. Implement Sci. 2006;1:23. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
117. Melnyk BM. The evidence-based practice mentor: A promising strategy for implementing and sustaining EBP in healthcare systems. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4:123–5. [PubMed]
118. Dearholt SL, White KM, Newhouse R, Pugh LC, Poe S. Educational strategies to develop evidence-based practice mentors. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2008 Mar-Apr;24:53–9. quiz 60-1. [PubMed]
119. Fineout-Overholt E, Levin RF, Melnyk BM. Strategies for advancing evidence-based practice in clinical settings. J N Y State Nurses Assoc. 2004 Fall–Winter;35:28–32. [PubMed]
120. Newhouse RP. Creating infrastructure supportive of evidence-based nursing practice: Leadership strategies. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4:21–9. [PubMed]
121. van Achterberg T, Schoonhoven L, Grol R. Nursing implementation science: how evidence-based nursing requires evidence-based implementation. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2008;40:302–10. [PubMed]
122. Wewers ME, Sarna L, Rice VH. Nursing research and treatment of tobacco dependence: State of the science. Nurs Res. 2006 Jul-Aug;55:S11–5. [PubMed]
123. Sarna L, Bialous SA. Strategic directions for nursing research in tobacco dependence. Nurs Res. 2006;55 [PubMed]
124. Curry SJ, Keller PA, Orleans CT, Fiore MC. The role of health care systems in increased tobacco cessation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:411–28. [PubMed]
125. Fiore MC, Keller PA, Curry SJ. Health system changes to facilitate the delivery of tobacco-dependence treatment. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Dec;33:S349–56. [PubMed]
126. Nutley S. Using Evidence How research can inform public services. Bristol: The Policy Press; 2007.
127. Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003;81:221–48. 171–2. [PubMed]
128. Berwick DM. The science of improvement. JAMA. 2008 Mar 12;299:1182–4. [PubMed]
129. Gawlinski A, Rutledge D. Selecting a model for evidence-based practice changes: A practical approach. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2008 Jul-Sep;19:291–300. [PubMed]
130. Sales A, Smith J, Curran G, Kochevar L. Models, strategies, and tools. Theory in implementing evidence-based findings into health care practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21 2:S43–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
131. Aita M, Richer MC, Heon M. Illuminating the processes of knowledge transfer in nursing. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4:146–55. [PubMed]
132. Nutley S, Walter I, Davies HTO. From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation. 2003;9:125–48.
133. Scott-Findlay S, Pollock C. Evidence, research, knowledge: a call for conceptual clarity. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1:92–7. discussion 8-101. [PubMed]
134. Kerner JF. Integrating research, practice, and policy: What we see depends on where we stand. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008 Mar-Apr;14:193–8. [PubMed]
135. Kitson AL. The need for systems change: Reflections on knowledge translation and organizational change. J Adv Nurs. 2009 Jan;65:217–28. [PubMed]
136. Satterfield JM, Spring B, Brownson RC, Mullen EJ, Newhouse RP, Walker BB, et al. Toward a transdisciplinary model of evidence-based practice. Milbank Q. 2009 Jun;87:368–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
137. Schillinger D. An introduction to effectiveness, dissemination and implementation research: A resource manual for community-engaged research. San Francisco: Clinical and Translational Science Unit University of California at San Francisco; 2010.
138. Gruen RL, Elliott JH, Nolan ML, Lawton PD, Parkhill A, McLaren CJ, et al. Sustainability science: An integrated approach for health-programme planning. Lancet. 2008 Nov 1;372:1579–89. [PubMed]
139. D'Amour D, Timmons V, Sheps S, Davies B. Knowledge to action: The development of training strategies. Healthc Policy. 2008 May;3:68–79. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
140. San Martin-Rodriguez L, Beaulieu MD, D'Amour D, Ferrada-Videla M. The determinants of successful collaboration: A review of theoretical and empirical studies. J Interprof Care. 2005 May;19 1:132–47. [PubMed]
141. Thompson GN, Estabrooks CA, Degner LF. Clarifying the concepts in knowledge transfer: a literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2006 Mar;53:691–701. [PubMed]
142. Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006 Mar;29:126–53. [PubMed]
143. Fraser I. Organizational research with impact: Working backwards. Worldview Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1:S52–S9. [PubMed]
144. Glasgow RE, Emmons KM. How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:413–33. [PubMed]
145. Glasgow RE, Magid DJ, Beck A, Ritzwoller D, Estabrooks PA. Practical clinical trials for translating research to practice: Design and measurement recommendations. Med Care. 2005;43:551–7. [PubMed]
146. Persaud N, Mamdani MM. External validity: The neglected dimension in evidence ranking. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12:450–3. [PubMed]
147. Manderson L, Hoban E. Cervical cancer services for indigenous women: Advocacy, community-based research and policy change in Australia. Women Health. 2006;43:69–88. [PubMed]
148. Spoth RL, Greenberg MT. Toward a comprehensive strategy for effective practitioner-scientist partnership and larger-scale community health and well-being. Am J Community Psychol. 2005;35:107–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
149. Karanicolas PJ, Montori VM, Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH, ACP Journal Club “Pragmatic” clinical trials: From whose perspective. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Jun 16;150:JC6-2–JC6-3. [PubMed]
150. McHugh RK, Murray HW, Barlow DH. Balancing fidelity and adaptation in the dissemination of empirically-supported treatments: The promise of transdiagnostic interventions. Behav Res Ther. 2009 Jul 28; [PMC free article] [PubMed]
151. Leykum LK, Pugh JA, Lanham HJ, Harmon J, McDaniel RR., Jr Implementation research design: integrating participatory action research into randomized controlled trials. Implement Sci. 2009;4:69. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
152. Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham I. Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ. 2009 Aug 4;181:165–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
153. Estabrooks CA. The conceptual structure of research utilization. Res Nurs Health. 1999 Jun;22:203–16. [PubMed]
154. Kiefer L, Frank J, Di Ruggiero E, Dobbins M, Manuel D, Gully PR, et al. Fostering evidence-based decision-making in Canada: Examining the need for a Canadian population and public health evidence centre and research network. Can J Public Health. 2005 May-Jun;96:I1–40. following 200. [PubMed]
155. Backer TE. Knowledge utilization: The third wave. Sci Commun. 1991;12:225–40.
156. Best A, Hiatt RA, Norman CD. Knowledge integration: Conceptualizing communications in cancer control systems. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Jun;71:319–27. [PubMed]
157. Rubenstein LV, Pugh J. Strategies for promoting organizational and practice change by advancing implementation research. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21 2:S58–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
158. Titler MG, Everett LQ, Adams S. Implications for implementation science. Nurs Res. 2007 Jul-Aug;56:S53–9. [PubMed]
159. Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD. Basic science and translational research in JAMA. JAMA. 2002 Apr 3;287:1728. [PubMed]