Odd Couple? Reenvisioning the Relation Between Science and Practice in the Dissemination-Implementation Era

By J. Weisz, M. Y. Ng, S. Bearman. 2014

225 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Decades of clinical psychological science have produced empirically supported treatments that are now undergoing dissemination and implementation (DI) but with little guidance from a science that is just taking shape. Charting a future for DI science (DIS) and DI practice (DIP), and their complex relationship, will be complicated by significant challenges—the implementation cliff (intervention benefit drops when tested practices are scaled up), low relevance of most clinical research to actual practice, and differing timetables and goals for DIP versus DIS. To address the challenges, and prepare the next generation of clinical psychological scientists, we propose the following: making intervention research look more like practice, solving the “too many empirically supported treatments” problem, addressing mismatches between interventions and their users (e.g., clients, therapists), broadening the array of intervention delivery systems, sharpening outcome monitoring and feedback, incentivizing high-risk/high-gain innovations, designing new professional tracks, and synchronizing and linking the often-insular practice and science of DI.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, General Health Professions

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c059c31b4412fa11bba3f5bb2a222a277b2cd9a0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

  1. Christine Knaevelsrud
  2. C. Schaeuffele
  3. Ava Schulz
  4. Johanna Boettcher
  5. B. Renneberg

In General Health Professions

  1. B. Renneberg

Citations in the corpus