The gap between research and practice is well documented. We address one of the underlying reasons for this gap: the assumption that effectiveness research naturally and logically follows from successful efficacy research. These 2 research traditions have evolved different methods and values; consequently, there are inherent differences between the characteristics of a successful efficacy intervention versus those of an effectiveness one. Moderating factors that limit robustness across settings, populations, and intervention staff need to be addressed in efficacy studies, as well as in effectiveness trials. Greater attention needs to be paid to documenting intervention reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Recommendations are offered to help close the gap between efficacy and effectiveness research and to guide evaluation and possible adoption of new programs.

The Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) is a new tool to measure the specific impact of result disclosure after genetic testing. The authors compared its performance with that of questionnaires measuring general and cancer-specific distress. Participants (158 women) responded 1 month after they received genetic test results. The women were divided into 4 standard clinical test result groups: BRCA1/2 positive, BRCA1/2 negative, panel negative, and true negative. Factor analysis supported the formation of 3 subscales: Distress (6 items, alpha = .86), Uncertainty (9 items, alpha = .77), and Positive Experiences (4 items, alpha = .75). All 3 MICRA subscales differentiated participants who were BRCA1/2 positive from the other 3 groups. MICRA thus helps identify subgroups of vulnerable genetic testing participants.

Background: Colonoscopy has become a preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modality. Little is known about why patients who are referred for colonoscopy do not complete the recommended procedures. Prior adherence studies have evaluated colonoscopy only in combination with flexible sigmoidoscopy, failed to differentiate between screening and diagnostic procedures, and have examined cancellations/no‐shows, but not nonscheduling, as mechanisms of nonadherence. Methods: Sociodemographic predictors of screening completion were assessed in a retrospective cohort of 647 patients referred for colonoscopy at a major university hospital. Then, using a qualitative study design, a convenience sample of patients who never completed screening after referral (n=52) was interviewed by telephone, and comparisons in reported reasons for nonadherence were made by gender. Results: Half of all patients referred for colonoscopy failed to complete the procedure, overwhelmingly because of nonscheduling. In multivariable analysis, female sex, younger age, and insurance type predicted poorer adherence. Patient‐reported barriers to screening completion included cognitive‐emotional factors (e.g., lack of perceived risk for CRC, fear of pain, and concerns about modesty and the bowel preparation), logistic obstacles (e.g., cost, other health problems, and competing demands), and health system barriers (e.g., scheduling challenges, long waiting times). Women reported more concerns about modesty and other aspects of the procedure than men. Only 40% of patients were aware of alternative screening options. Conclusions: Adherence to screening colonoscopy referrals is sub‐optimal and may be improved by better communication with patients, counseling to help resolve logistic barriers, and improvements in colonoscopy referral and scheduling mechanisms.

No abstract