Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine 1/2008

01-02-2008 | Editorial

What Types of Evidence are Most Needed to Advance Behavioral Medicine?

Author: Russell E. Glasgow, Ph.D.

Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine | Issue 1/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This editorial presents a perspective on the types of evidence most needed to advance behavioral medicine given the current status of the field.

Purpose

The paper argues that the types of evidence most needed at present are evidence that is contextual, practical, and robust.

Methods

Each of the above issues is discussed with attention to characteristics of interventions; representativeness at the multiple levels of setting, clinical staff, and participants; and research design and measures. Arguments are made from philosophy of science, status of the literature, and future directions perspectives.

Results

The current dominant paradigm of reductionistic studies focused predominantly on internal validity using highly homogenous patients and academic settings is not and will not produce the desired translation to real-world practice and policy. Instead, broader “practical” clinical and behavioral trials are needed that address the influence of the context in which programs are conducted, that include outcomes important to decision makers and communities, and that focus on moderating, mediating, and economic issues.

Conclusions

To create programs that will be disseminable, a greater focus is needed on external validity and transparency of reporting. We need to realize that the world is complex and embrace and study this complexity to produce further progress. Such an approach can produce evidence that is both rigorous and relevant.
Literature
1.
Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962.
2.
Biglan A. Changing Cultural Practices: A Contextualist Framework for Intervention Research. Reno, NV: Context Press; 1995.
3.
Thomas P. Integrating Primary Health Care. Oxford, England: Radcliffe Publishing; 2006.
4.
Gharajedaghi J. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity. 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier; 2006.
5.
McNulty T, Ferlie E. Reengineering Health Care: The Complexities of Organizational Transformation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2002.
6.
Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Design for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2002.
7.
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(6): 551–557.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancey CM. Practical clinical trials. Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. J Am Med Assoc. 2003; 290: 1624–1632.CrossRef
9.
Glasgow RE, Davidson KW, Dobkin PL, Ockene J, Spring B. Practical behavioral trials to advance evidence-based behavioral medicine. Ann Behav Med. 2006; 31(1): 5–13.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Glasgow RE, Emmons KM. How can we increase translation of research into practice? Ann Rev Pub Health. 2007; 28(1): 413–433.CrossRef
11.
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review: A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005; 10(S1): S21–S39.CrossRef
12.
Paul GL. Behavior modification research: Design and tactics. In Franks CM, ed. Behavior Therapy: Appraisal and Status. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1969: 29–62.
13.
Glass TA, McAtee MJ. Behavioral science at the crossroads in public health: Extending horizons, envisioning the future. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 62(7): 1650–1671.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Stokols D. Social ecology and behavioral medicine: Implications for training, practice, and policy. Behav Med. 2000; 26: 129–138.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 3rd ed. London: Erlbaum; 2003.
16.
Murray DM. Statistical models appropriate for designs often used in group-randomized trials. Stat Med. 2001;20(9–10): 1373–1385.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. B Med J.. 2000; 321: 694–696.CrossRef
18.
Goodman A. Storytelling as best practice: How stories strengthen your organization, engage your audience, and advance your mission. Andy Goodman; 2003.
19.
Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE. Childhood obesity prevention: Reviewing the translation potential of intervention evidence. Am J Prev Med. 2008; in press.
20.
Oldenburg B, Ffrench BF, Sallis JF. Health behavior research: The quality of the evidence base. Am J Health Promot. 2000; 14(4): 253–257.PubMed
21.
Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Estabrooks P. The future of health behavior change research: What is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Ann Behav Med. 2004; 27(1): 3–12.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: Issues in external validity and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006; 29(1): 126–153.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Glasgow RE, Green LW, Klesges LM, et al. External validity: We need to do more. Ann Behav Med. 2006; 31(2): 105–108.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Holmes D, Murray S, Perron A, Rail G. Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: Truth, power and fascism. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare. 2006; 4: 180–186.CrossRef
25.
Mohrer D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Lepage L. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports. JAMA. 2001; 285: 1987–1991.CrossRef
26.
Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: To whom do the results of this trial apply? Lancet. 2005; 365: 82–93.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Glasgow RE, Green LW, Ammerman A. A focus on external validity. Eval Health Prof. 2007; 30(2): 115–117.CrossRef
28.
Castro FG, Barrera M, Jr., Martinez CR, Jr. The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prev Sci. 2004; 5: 41–45.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Rotheram-Borus MJ, Flannery D, Duan N. Interventions that are CURRES: Cost-effective, useful, realistic, robust, evolving, and sustainable. In Rehmschmidt H, et al, eds., Facilitating Pathways: Care, Treatment, and Prevention in Child and Adolescent Health. New York: Springer; 2004; 235–244.
30.
Goodman RM, McLeroy KR, Steckler A, Hoyle R. Development of level of institutionalization scales for health promotion programs. Health Ed Q. 1993; 20: 161–178.
31.
Kaplan RM. The significance of quality of life in health care. Q Life Res. 2003; 12(Suppl 1): 3–16.CrossRef
32.
Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy to effectiveness transition. Am J Publ Health. 2003; 93(8): 1261–1267.CrossRef
33.
Berwick DM. A user’s manual for the IOM’s “Quality Chasm” report: Patients’ experience should be the fundamental source of the definition of “quality”. Health Aff. 2002; 21: 80–90.CrossRef
34.
Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003.
35.
McGlynn EA. An evidence-based national quality measurement and reporting system. Med Care. 2003; 41(1 Supp): I8–I15.PubMed
36.
Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman; 1997.
37.
Green LW, Ottosen JM. From efficacy to effectiveness to community and back: Evidence-based practice vs. practice-based evidence. Proceedings from conference: From Clinical Trials to Community: The Science of Translating Diabetes and Obesity Research. National Institutes of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2004.
38.
Greenwald P, Cullen JW. The new emphasis in cancer control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1985; 74(3): 543–551.PubMed
39.
Flay BR. Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs. Prev Med. 1986; 15: 451–474.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Stevens VJ, Glasgow RE, Hollis JF, Lichtenstein E, Vogt TM. A smoking cessation intervention for hospitalized patients. Med Care. 1993; 31: 65–72.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Stevens VJ, Glasgow RE, Toobert DJ, Karanja N, Smith KS. One-year results from a brief, computer-assisted intervention to decrease consumption of fat and increase consumption of fruits and vegetables. Prev Med. 2003; 36(5): 594–600.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Hallfors D, Cho H, Sanchez V, Khatapoush D, Kim HM, Bauer D. Efficacy vs. effectiveness trial results of an indicated “model” substance abuse program: Implications for public health. Am J Publ Health. 2006; 96(12): 2254–2259.CrossRef
43.
Estabrooks PA, Glasgow RE. Dissemination, knowledge exchange, or knowledge integration: Explaining the gap between medical office-based physical activity intervention research and practice. Am J Pub Health. 2005; 31(4 Suppl): S45–S56.
44.
Stange KC. One size doesn’t fit all. Multimethod research yields new insights into interventions to increase prevention in family practice. J Fam Pract. 1996; 43(4): 358–360.PubMed
45.
Curry L, Shield R, Wetle T, eds. Improving Aging and Public Health Research: Qualitative and Mixed Methods. Washington, DC: Public Health Association; 2006.
46.
Sterman J. All models are wrong: Reflections on becoming a systems scientist. Syst Dyn. 2002; 18: 501–531.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
What Types of Evidence are Most Needed to Advance Behavioral Medicine?
Author
Russell E. Glasgow, Ph.D.
Publication date
01-02-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Behavioral Medicine / Issue 1/2008
Print ISSN: 0883-6612
Electronic ISSN: 1532-4796
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-007-9008-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

Annals of Behavioral Medicine 1/2008 Go to the issue

Original Article

Hyperventilation Symptoms are Linked to a Lower Perceived Health in Asthma Patients

Rapid Communication

The Effects of Race-related Stress on Cortisol Reactivity in the Laboratory: Implications of the Duke Lacrosse Scandal

Original Article

Mediation of Adult Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in the National 5 A Day for Better Health Community Studies

Original Article

Preferences for a Patient-Centered Role Orientation: Association with Patient-Information-Seeking Behavior and Clinical Markers of Health

Presidential Address

The Importance of Context in Understanding Behavior and Promoting Health

Editorial

The Annals Is Moving Forward!