The applicability and transferability of public health research from one setting to another: a survey of maternal health researchers

Abstract

Abstract:Background: Little is known about the process of assessing whether research conducted in one setting is applicable (i.e. implementable) and transferable (i.e. as effective) to another, despite its importance for health policy and practice. Applicability/transferability differs from external validity; the former focuses on potential utility in another specific setting, whilst the latter is more general. This study explored perceptions of applicability/transferability among maternal health researchers. Methods: Published maternal public health researchers in low-or middle-income countries were invited to complete an online questionnaire. They were shown four summaries of maternal public health intervention evaluations and asked which they felt were the most and least applicable/ transferable to their own setting and why. Results: 283 valid questionnaires were received (41% response rate). Applicability/transferability decisions frequently depended on the pertinence of the problem addressed by the intervention or the intervention's characteristics. Less common were comparison of the respondents' setting with the study setting, or consideration of the study's effectiveness. Conclusions:The factors affecting perceptions of applicability/transferability are broader than those associated with external validity. Improving the reporting of intervention characteristics and implementation is particularly important for applicability/transferability assessments and could increase the appropriate use of public health research in policy and practice. (Global Health Promotion, 2013; 20(1): 16-24)

Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa

“…Results of RCTs performed in high-income countries (HICs) cannot easily be transposed to SSA because of differences of contexts [3, 4]. In fact, the social and cultural environment, infrastructure organization and availability of facilities differ greatly [5].…”

Understanding perceived availability and importance of tobacco control interventions to inform European adoption of a UK economic model: a cross-sectional study

“…Moreover, the difference in rankings by stakeholders’ perceptions on importance and cost-effectiveness data provides some hints that there may be other factors behind how interventions are valued in a country. Burchett et al (2013) found that one of the factors affecting stakeholders’ perceptions was their previous experiences and beliefs about the interventions [ 29 ]. Thus, recognising this difference prior to any evidence transfer work is critical as the interventions that are perceived ‘important’ by stakeholders are also the ones that may be deemed applicable to new settings [ 17 , 18 ].…”

Model‐based economic evaluations in smoking cessation and their transferability to new contexts: a systematic review

“…However, a distinction also exists between what is feasible/applicable and what is generalizable/transferable. Applicability refers to ‘how can I replicate the intervention in my own decision context?’ (the process question) and generalizability refers to ‘whether the effectiveness will be similar to that in the original context?’ (the outcome question) 12, 13, 15, 16. Therefore, these two underlying questions seem to have defined transferability in the literature.…”

“…(the process question) and generalizability refers to 'whether the effectiveness will be similar to that in the original context?' (the outcome question) [12,13,15,16]. Therefore, these two underlying questions seem to have defined transferability in the literature.…”