Volume 47 | Number 3pt1 | June 2012

Abstract List

Russell E. Glasgow, Bridget Gaglio, Gary Bennett, Gerald J. Jerome, Hsin‐Chieh Yeh, David B. Sarwer, Lawrence Appel, Graham Colditz, Thomas A. Wadden, Barbara Wells


To characterize ractice‐ased pportunities for eight eduction () trials along the pragmatic‐explanatory continuum.


The trials consist of three individual studies that target obesity treatment in primary care settings.


Using the agmatic xplanatory ontinuum ndicator ummary () criteria, nine reviewers independently scored each trial.


Average and median ratings, inter‐rater reliability, and relationships to additional ratings of the extent to which study designs were explanatory (i.e., efficacy) versus pragmatic (i.e., practical) and related to external validity were determined.

Principal Findings

One trial was consistently rated as being significantly more pragmatic than the others ( = 0.43,  < .001), although all three were in the moderate range on the scales. Ratings varied across dimensions, being most pragmatic on comparison condition and primary outcome. Raters, although undergoing training and using identical definitions, scored their own study as more pragmatic than the other studies/interventions.


These results highlight the need for more comprehensive reporting on and related criteria for research translation. The criteria provide a richer understanding of the studies. It is not clear whether the original criteria are sufficient to provide a comprehensive profile.