A tool to analyze the transferability of health promotion interventions

BMC Public Health

François Alla¹  Valery Ridde²  Laetitia Minary¹  Linda Cambon³ 

[1] CHU Nancy, Epidémiologie et Evaluation Cliniques, Nancy F-54 000, France;Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Montreal School of Public Health, CRCHUM, 3875 Saint-Urbain, Montreal QC H2W 1 V1, Canada;Université de Lorraine, Université Paris Descartes, Apemac, EA 4360, Nancy F-54 000, France

关键词: Knowledge transfer;    Evidence-based health promotion;    Implementation;    Intervention;    Health promotion;    Transferability;   

Others  :  1161440
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-1184

 received in 2013-04-07, accepted in 2013-12-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Health promotion interventions are often complex and not easily transferable from one setting to another. The objective of this article is to present the development of a tool to analyze the transferability of these interventions and to support their development and adaptation to new settings.

Methods

The concept mapping (CM) method was used. CM is helpful for generating a list of ideas associated with a concept and grouping them statistically. Researchers and stakeholders in the health promotion field were mobilized to participate in CM and generated a first list of transferability criteria. Duplicates were eliminated, and the shortened list was returned to the experts, scored for relevance and grouped into categories. Concept maps were created, then the project team selected the definitive map. From the final list of criteria thus structured, a tool to analyze transferability was created. This tool was subsequently tested by 15 project leaders and nine experts.

Results

In all, 18 experts participated in CM. After testing, a tool, named ASTAIRE, contained 23 criteria structured into four categories: population, environment, implementation, and support for transfer. It consists of two tools—one for reporting data from primary interventions and one for analyzing interventions’ transferability and supporting their adaptation to new settings.

Conclusion

The tool is helpful for selecting the intervention to transfer into the setting being considered and for supporting its adaptation. It also facilitates new interventions to be produced with more explicit transferability criteria.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Cambon et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]WHO: Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Edited by Promotion FICoH. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1986.
• [2]Ridde V: Reducing social inequalities in health: public health, community health or health promotion? Promot Educ 2007, 14(2):63-67.
• [3]McQueen DV, Anderson L: Donnees probantes et evaluation des programmes en promotion de la sante. Ruptures, revue transdisciplinaire en sante 2000, 7(1):79-98.
• [4]Mac Queen DV: Strengthening the evidence base for health promotion. Health promotion international 2001, 16(3):261-268.
• [5]McQueen DV, Jones C: Global Perspectives on Health Promotion Effectiveness. Edited by McQueen DV, Jones CM. New York: Springer; 2007:3-11.
• [6]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2008, 337:a1655.
• [7]MRC: Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance. London: UK Medical Research Council; 2008:39.
• [8]Wang S, Moss JR, Hiller JE: Applicability and transferability of interventions in evidence-based public health. Health Promot Int 2006, 21(1):76-83.
• [9]Victora CG, Habicht JP, Bryce J: Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomized trials. Am J Public Health 2004, 94(3):400-405.
• [10]Festinger L, Riecken H,HW, Schachter S: When Prophecy Fails : A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press; 1956.
• [11]Cambon L, Minary L, Ridde V, Alla F: Transferability of interventions in health education: a review. BMC Public Health 2012, 12(1):497.
• [12]Laws RA, Saint Georg AB, Rychetnik L, Bauman AE: Diabetes prevention research: a systematic review of external validity in lifestyle interventions. Am J Prev Med 2012, 43(2):205-214.
• [13]Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, Shiell A: Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002, 56(2):119-127.
• [14]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, 34(4):228-243.
• [15]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(2):75-80.
• [16]Buffett C, Ciliska D, Thomas H: Can I Use This Evidence in my Program Decision? Assessing Applicability and Transferability of Evidence. Hamilton, ON L8S 1G5: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools; 2007:22.
• [17]Trochim WMKM: An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Eval Program Plann 1989, 12(1):1-16.
• [18]Burke JG, O'Campo P, Peak GL, Gielen AC, McDonnell KA, Trochim WM: An introduction to concept mapping as a participatory public health research method. Qual Health Res 2005, 15(10):1392-1410.
• [19]Concept mapping incorporated. http://www.conceptsystems.com webcite
• [20]Ward JH: Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 1963, 58:236-244.
• [21]Vivons en forme. http://www.vivons-en-forme.org/ webcite
• [22]Fédération nationale d'éducation pour la santé. http://www.fnes.fr webcite
• [23]Claudot F, Fresson J, Coudane H, Guillemin F, Demoré B, Alla F: Recherche en épidémiologie clinique : quelles règles appliquer ? Revue d'epidemiologie et de sante publique 2008, 56(1):63-70.
• [24]Glasgow RE, Boles SM, McKay HG, Feil EG, Barrera M Jr: The D-Net diabetes self-management program: long-term implementation, outcomes, and generalization results. Prev Med 2003, 36(4):410-419.
• [25]Green LW, Glasgow RE: Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof 2006, 29(1):126-153.
• [26]Ferguson L: External validity, generalizability, and knowledge utilization. J Nurs Scholarsh 2004, 36(1):16-22.
• [27]Leviton L, Kettel Khan L, Rog D, Dawkins N, Cotton D: Evaluability assessment to improve Health Policies, Programs, and Practices. Annu Rev Public Health 2010, 31:213-233.
• [28]LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M: The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2012, 12(1):751.
• [29]Amara N, Ouimet M, Landry R: New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of University Research in Government Agencies. Science Communication 2004, 26(1):75-106.
• [30]Kothari A, Birch S, Charles C: "Interaction" and research utilisation in health policies and programs: does it work? Health Policy 2005, 71(1):117-125.
• [31]Ginsburg L, Lewis S, Zackheim L, Casebeer A: Revisiting interaction in knowledge translation. Implementation Science 2007, 2(1):34.
• [32]Harris JR, Cheadle A, Hannon PA, Forehand M, Lichiello P, Mahoney E, Snyder S, Yarrow J: A framework for disseminating evidence-based health promotion practices. Prev Chronic Dis 2012, 9:11_0081.