OBJECTIVES: This study proposes methods for blending design components of clinical effectiveness and implementation research. Such blending can provide benefits over pursuing these lines of research independently; for example, more rapid translational gains, more effective implementation strategies, and more useful information for decision makers. This study proposes a "hybrid effectiveness-implementation" typology, describes a rationale for their use, outlines the design decisions that must be faced, and provides several real-world examples. RESULTS: An effectiveness-implementation hybrid design is one that takes a dual focus a priori in assessing clinical effectiveness and implementation. We propose 3 hybrid types: (1) testing effects of a clinical intervention on relevant outcomes while observing and gathering information on implementation; (2) dual testing of clinical and implementation interventions/strategies; and (3) testing of an implementation strategy while observing and gathering information on the clinical intervention's impact on relevant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid typology proposed herein must be considered a construct still in evolution. Although traditional clinical effectiveness and implementation trials are likely to remain the most common approach to moving a clinical intervention through from efficacy research to public health impact, judicious use of the proposed hybrid designs could speed the translation of research findings into routine practice.
OBJECTIVES: This study proposes methods for blending design components of clinical effectiveness and implementation research. Such blending can provide benefits over pursuing these lines of research independently; for example, more rapid translational gains, more effective implementation strategies, and more useful information for decision makers. This study proposes a "hybrid effectiveness-implementation" typology, describes a rationale for their use, outlines the design decisions that must be faced, and provides several real-world examples. RESULTS: An effectiveness-implementation hybrid design is one that takes a dual focus a priori in assessing clinical effectiveness and implementation. We propose 3 hybrid types: (1) testing effects of a clinical intervention on relevant outcomes while observing and gathering information on implementation; (2) dual testing of clinical and implementation interventions/strategies; and (3) testing of an implementation strategy while observing and gathering information on the clinical intervention's impact on relevant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid typology proposed herein must be considered a construct still in evolution. Although traditional clinical effectiveness and implementation trials are likely to remain the most common approach to moving a clinical intervention through from efficacy research to public health impact, judicious use of the proposed hybrid designs could speed the translation of research findings into routine practice.
Authors: Carol VanDeusen Lukas; Ryann L Engle; Sally K Holmes; Victoria A Parker; Robert A Petzel; Marjorie Nealon Seibert; Michael Shwartz; Jennifer L Sullivan Journal: Health Care Manage Rev Date: 2010 Jul-Sep
Authors: Mark S Bauer; Linda McBride; William O Williford; Henry Glick; Bruce Kinosian; Lori Altshuler; Thomas Beresford; Amy M Kilbourne; Martha Sajatovic Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Peter Roy-Byrne; Michelle G Craske; Greer Sullivan; Raphael D Rose; Mark J Edlund; Ariel J Lang; Alexander Bystritsky; Stacy Shaw Welch; Denise A Chavira; Daniela Golinelli; Laura Campbell-Sills; Cathy D Sherbourne; Murray B Stein Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John S March; Susan G Silva; Scott Compton; Mark Shapiro; Robert Califf; Ranga Krishnan Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Alison H Brown; Amy N Cohen; Matthew J Chinman; Christopher Kessler; Alexander S Young Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Bryan C Wallace; Larry A Allen; Christopher E Knoepke; Russell E Glasgow; Carmen L Lewis; Diane L Fairclough; Laura J Helmkamp; Monica D Fitzgerald; Wendy S Tzou; Daniel B Kramer; Paul D Varosy; Sanjaya K Gupta; John M Mandrola; Scott C Brancato; Pamela N Peterson; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Julie Sarno Owens; Aaron R Lyon; Nicole Evangelista Brandt; Carrie Masia Warner; Erum Nadeem; Craig Spiel; Mary Wagner Journal: School Ment Health Date: 2014-05-01
Authors: Richard H Fortinsky; Laura N Gitlin; Laura T Pizzi; Catherine Verrier Piersol; James Grady; Julie T Robison; Sheila Molony Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Julia C Dombrowski; Mary Irvine; Denis Nash; Graham Harriman; Matthew R Golden Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Christopher J Miller; Kevin N Griffith; Kelly Stolzmann; Bo Kim; Samantha L Connolly; Mark S Bauer Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Timothy C Guetterman; John W Creswell; Marsha Wittink; Fran K Barg; Felipe G Castro; Britt Dahlberg; Daphne C Watkins; Charles Deutsch; Joseph J Gallo Journal: J Contin Educ Health Prof Date: 2017 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Lori A Orlando; Adam H Buchanan; Susan E Hahn; Carol A Christianson; Karen P Powell; Celette Sugg Skinner; Blair Chesnut; Colette Blach; Barbara Due; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Vincent C Henrich Journal: N C Med J Date: 2013 Jul-Aug