4.4 Article

Moving from efficacy to effectiveness trials in prevention research

Journal

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 32-41

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.10.008

Keywords

Effectiveness; Efficacy; Translational research; Eating disorder prevention

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH070699] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH070699, 5 R01 MH070699] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Efficacy trials test whether interventions work under optimal, highly controlled conditions whereas effectiveness trials test whether interventions work with typical clients and providers in real-world settings. Researchers, providers, and funding bodies have called for more effectiveness trials to understand whether interventions produce effects under ecologically valid conditions, which factors predict program effectiveness, and what strategies are needed to successfully implement programs in practice settings. The transition from efficacy to effectiveness with preventive interventions involves unique considerations, some of which are not shared by treatment research. The purpose of this article is to discuss conceptual and methodological issues that arise when making the transition from efficacy to effectiveness research in primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention, drawing on the experiences of two complimentary research groups as well as the existing literature. We address (a) program of research, (b) intervention design and conceptualization, (c) participant selection and characteristics, (d) providers, (e) context, (f) measurement and methodology, (g) outcomes, (h) cost, and (i) sustainability. We present examples of research in eating disorder prevention that demonstrate the progression from efficacy to effectiveness trials. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available