Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 380–384 | Cite as

Behavioral and Social Sciences at the National Institutes of Health: adoption of research findings in health research and practice as a scientific priority

Practice and Public Health Policies

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health’s Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) recently released its Strategic Plan for 2017 to 2021. This plan highlights three scientific priorities: (1) improve the synergy of basic and applied behavioral and social sciences research, (2) enhance and promote the research infrastructure, methods, and measures needed to support a more cumulative and integrated approach to behavioral and social sciences research, and (3) facilitate the adoption of behavioral and social sciences research findings in health research and in practice. This commentary focuses on the challenges and opportunities to facilitate the adoption of research findings in health research and in practice. In addition to the ongoing NIH support for dissemination and implementation (D&I) research, we must address transformative challenges and opportunities such as better disseminating and implementing D&I research, merging research and practice, adopting more rigorous and diverse methods and measures for both D&I and clinical trials research, evaluating technological-based delivery of interventions, and transitioning from minimally adaptable intervention packages to planned adaptations rooted in behavior change principles. Beyond translation into practice and policy, the OBSSR Strategic Plan also highlights the need for translation of behavioral and social science findings into the broader biomedical research enterprise.

Keywords

Dissemination and implementation research Implementation science Practice adoption Planned adaptation Clinical research methodology Clinical translation Behavioral and social sciences research 

References

  1. 1.
    The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research Strategic Plan 2017-2021. Retrieved November 23, 2016, from https://obssr.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OBSSR-SP-2017-2021.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Riley, W. T. (2017). Basic and applied behavioural and social sciences at the NIH. Nature Human Behav, 1, 0023. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0023.
  3. 3.
    Riley, W. T. (2017) Behavioral and social sciences at the National Institutes of Health: methods, measures, and data infrastructures as a scientific priority. Health Psych, 36(1), 5–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meslin, E. B., Blasimme, A., & Cambon-Thomsen, A. (2013). Mapping the translational policy “valley of death.”. Clin Trans Med, 2(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wolff, S. H. (2008). The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA, 299(2), 274–286.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siu, A. L., Bibbins-Domingo, K., & Grossman, D. (2015). Evidence-based clinical prevention in the era of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: the role of the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA, 314(19), 2021–2012. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Purtle, J., Peters, R., & Brownson, R. C. (2016). A review of policy dissemination and implementation research funded by the National Institutes of Health, 2007-2014. Implement Sci, 11, 1. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0367-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neta, G., Sanchez, M. A., Chambers, D. A., Phillips, S. M., Leyva, B., Cynkin, L., et al. (2015). Implementation science in cancer prevention and control: a decade of grant funding by the National Cancer Institute and future directions. Implement Sci, 10, 4. doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0020-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Proctor, E. K., & Chambers, D. A. (2016). Training in dissemination and implementation research: a field wide perspective. Transl Behav Med. doi:10.1007/s13142-016-0406-8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuo, T., Gase, L. N., Inkelas, M., & The Population Health and Policy Workgroup. (2015). Dissemination, implementation, and improvement science research in population health: opportunities for public health and CTSAs. Clin Transl Sci, 8(6), 807–813.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wolfenden, L., Milat, A. J., Lecathelinais, C., Skelton, E., Clinton-McHarg, T., Williams, C., et al. (2016). A bibliographic review of public health dissemination and implementation research output and citation rates. Prev Med Rep, 4, 441–443.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brunner, J. W., Sankare, I. C., & Kahn, K. L. (2015). Interdisciplinary priorities for dissemination, implementation, and improvement science: frameworks, mechanics, and measures. Clin Transl Sci, 8(6), 820–823. doi:10.1111/cts.12319.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer, F., Lange, K., Klose, K., Greiner, W., & Kraemer, A. (2016). Barriers and strategies in guideline implementation—a scoping review. Healthcare, 4, 36. doi:10.3390/healthcare4030036.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Budrionis, A., & Belika, J. G. (2016). The Learning Healthcare System: Where are we now? A systematic review. J Biomed Inform, 64, 87–92. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2016.09.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Curran, G. M., Bauer, M., Mittman, B., Pyne, J. M., & Stetler, C. (2012). Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care, 50(3), 217–226. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hall, K., Staiger, P. K., Simpson, A., Best, D., & Lubman, D. I. (2016). After 30 years of dissemination, have we achieved sustained practice change in motivational interviewing? Addiction, 111(7), 1144–1150. doi:10.1111/add.13014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nutbeam, D., & Bauman, A. E. (2006). Evaluation in a nutshell: a practical guide to the evaluation of health promotion programs. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Southam-Gerow, M. A., & Dorsey, S. (2014). Qualitative and mixed methods research in dissemination and implementation science: introduction to the special issue. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol, 43(6), 845–850. doi:10.1080/15374416.2014.930690.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rabin, B. A., Brownson, R. C., Kerner, J. F., & Glasgow, R. E. (2006). Methodologic challenges in disseminating evidence-based interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med, 31(4 Suppl), S24–S34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chan, C. K. Y., Oldenburg, B., & Viswanath, K. (2015). Advancing the science of dissemination and implementation in behavioral medicine: evidence and progress. Int J Behav Med, 22, 277–282. doi:10.1007/s12529-015-9490-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Northridge, M. E., & Metcalf, S. S. (2016). Enhancing implementation science by applying best principles of system science. Health Res Policy Sys, 14, 74. doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0146-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rabin, B. A., Lewis, C. C., Norton, W. E., Neta, G., Chambers, D., Tobin, J. N., et al. (2016). Measurement resources for dissemination and implementation research in health. Implement Sci, 11, 42. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0401-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glasgow, R. E., & Riley, W. T. (2013). Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them. Am J Prev Med, 45(2), 237–243. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Riley, W. T., Glasgow, R. E., Etheridge, L., & Abernethy, A. P. (2013). Rapid, responsive, relevant (R3) research: a call for a rapid learning health research enterprise. Clin Transl Med, 2(1), 10. doi:10.1186/2001-1326-2-10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neta, G., Glasgow, R. E., Carpenter, C. R., Grimshaw, J. M., Rabin, B. A., Fernandez, M. E., et al. (2015). A framework for enhancing the value of research for dissemination and implementation. Am J Pub Health, 105(1), 49–57. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mohr, D. C., Cheung, K., Schueller, S. M., Hendricks Brown, C., & Duan, N. (2013). Continuous evaluation of evolving behavioral intervention technologies. Am J Prev Med, 45(4), 517–523. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.06.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Buscemi, J., Janke, A., Kugler, K. C., Duffecy, J., Mielenz, T. J., St. George, S. M., et al. (2016). Increasing public health impact of evidence-based intervention in behavioral medicine: new approaches and future directions. J Behav Med. doi:10.1007/s10865-016-9773-3.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Linke, S. E., Larsen, B. A., Marquez, B., Mendoza-Vasconez, A., & Marcus, B. H. (2016). Adapting technological interventions to meet the needs of priority populations. Prog Cardiovascu Dis, 58(6), 630–638. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2016.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raaijmakers, L. C., Pouwels, S., Berghuis, K. A., & Nienhuis, S. W. (2015). Technology-based interventions in the treatment of overweight and obesity: a systematic review. Appetite, 95, 138–151. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.07.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fowler, L. A., Holt, S. L., & Joshi, D. (2016). Mobile technology-based interventions for adult users of alcohol: a systematic review of the literature. Addict Behav, 62, 25–34. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.06.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Atkins, M. S., Rusch, D., Mehta, T. G., & Lakind, D. (2016). Future directions for dissemination and implementation science: Aligning ecological theory and public health to close the research to practice gap. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol, 45(2), 215–226. doi:10.1080/15374416.2015.1050724.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee, S. J., Altschul, I., & Mowbray, C. T. (2008). Using planned adaptation to implement evidence-based programs with new populations. Am J Community Psychol, 41, 290–303. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9160-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Atassi, N., Yerramilli-Rao, P., Szymonifka, J., Yu, H., Kearney, M., Grasso, D., et al. (2013). Analysis of start-up, retention, and adherence in ALS clinical trials. Neurology, 81(15), 1350–1355. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a823e0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cobb, E. M., Meurer, W., Harney, D., Slibergleit, R., Lake, B. P., Clark, C., et al. (2015). Patient engagement in neurological clinical trials design: a conference summary. Clin Trans Sci, 8(6), 776–778. doi:10.1111/cts.12297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine (outside the US) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences ResearchNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations