Starting with the proposition that "if we want more evidence-based practice, we need more practice-based evidence," this article (a) offers questions and guides that practitioners, program planners, and policy makers can use to determine the applicability of evidence to situations and populations other than those in which the evidence was produced (generalizability), (b) suggests criteria that reviewers can use to evaluate external validity and potential for generalization, and (c) recommends procedures that practitioners and program planners can use to adapt evidence-based interventions and integrate them with evidence on the population and setting characteristics, theory, and experience into locally appropriate programs. The development and application in tandem of such questions, guides, criteria, and procedures can be a step toward increasing the relevance of research for decision making and should support the creation and reporting of more practice-based research having high external validity.

Timely implementation of principles of evidence-based public health (EBPH) is critical for bridging the gap between discovery of new knowledge and application. Public health organizations need sufficient capacity (the availability of resources, structures, and workforce to plan deliver and evaluate the “preventive dose” of an evidence-based intervention) to move science to practice. We review principles of EBPH, the importance of capacity building to advance evidence-based approaches, promising approaches for capacity building, and future areas for research and practice. While there is general agreement on the importance of EBPH, there is less clarity on the definition of evidence, how to find it, and how, when and where to use it. Capacity for EBPH is needed among both individuals and organizations. Capacity can be strengthened via training, use of tools, technical assistance, assessment and feedback, peer networking, and incentives. Modest investments in EBPH capacity-building will foster more effective public health practice.

No abstract

The promise of widespread implementation of efficacious interventions across the cancer continuum into routine practice and policy has yet to be realized. Multilevel influences, such as communities and families surrounding patients or health-care policies and organizations surrounding provider teams, may determine whether effective interventions are successfully implemented. Greater recognition of the importance of these influences in advancing (or hindering) the impact of single-level interventions has motivated the design and testing of multilevel interventions designed to address them. However, implementing research evidence from single- or multilevel interventions into sustainable routine practice and policy presents substantive challenges. Furthermore, relatively few multilevel interventions have been conducted along the cancer care continuum, and fewer still have been implemented, disseminated, or sustained in practice. The purpose of this chapter is, therefore, to illustrate and examine the concepts underlying the implementation and spread of multilevel interventions into routine practice and policy. We accomplish this goal by using a series of cancer and noncancer examples that have been successfully implemented and, in some cases, spread widely. Key concepts across these examples include the importance of phased implementation, recognizing the need for pilot testing, explicit engagement of key stakeholders within and between each intervention level; visible and consistent leadership and organizational support, including financial and human resources; better understanding of the policy context, fiscal climate, and incentives underlying implementation; explication of handoffs from researchers to accountable individuals within and across levels; ample integration of multilevel theories guiding implementation and evaluation; and strategies for long-term monitoring and sustainability.