Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Applied Nursing Research 21 (2008) 1
Editorial
Lag time in research to practice: are we reducing or increasing the gap?
Ours is an information age, which grows exponentially
with each day, each new journal launched, and each new
research project funded. Recent reports indicate that in
MEDLINE alone there are 10,000 new randomized
clinical trials (RCTs) included each year and 350,000
RCTs identified by the Cochrane Collaboration (Rycroft-
Malone, 2006). How can any one of us, even in a defined
area of research, maintain knowledge of the state of the art
in our circumscribed area of expertise. Academic research-
ers by nature of what they do and how they spend the
majority of their time are best equipped to stay on the top
of their game, that is, to know the latest research in their
content area as soon as it is published. However,
awareness is only the first step, these researchers must
evaluate all aspects of the research, from the theoretical to
the methodological developments.
Clinicians, on the other hand, are not necessarily involved
in reading the latest research as soon as it is published. In
fact, nurses and health professionals are so busy with their
clinical practice that they often rely on others for information
on the latest knowledge. Conferences abound, focused on
both the content and the process of applying research to
practice, within the structures and confines of both evidence-
based practice and best practice models applied to specific
content areas. Yet, it remains difficult not only to distil the
information but, more importantly, also to judge what
should, in fact, be applied to practice. Early estimates were
that it could take anywhere from 10 to 30 years for research
to be implemented in clinical practice. What we do not know
is whether the focus on evidence-based practice as an
important model for research dissemination has reduced the
0897-1897/$ see front matter 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2007.10.001
www.elsevier.com/locate/apnr
gap. The diffusion of innovation model has provided
support for our understandings of the necessary components
of change. Informing clinicians of the research is not
sufficient, but it is the recognized first step. Understanding
the research is the next step. One recent initiative in support
of bringing the researchers and clinicians together for
dialogue was sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation through Author in the Room (Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, 2007). Through this initiative, 15
monthly telephone conference calls were held between
authors of recently published research articles and 3,517
health care practitioners (52% were physicians or nurses).
Importantly, these practitioners reported that they would
change their practice based on the discussion in the calls.
This Author in the Room initiative is a demonstration of a
key link in the dissemination process and a model for
bridging the gap between research and practice. Now the
challenge is to continue the dialogue.
Joyce J. Fitzpatrick
(Editor)
References
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2007). Cutting lag time in implementing
findings JAMA authors discuss research with health care practitioners
during conference calls. Retrieved October 6, 2007 from: http://www.
rwjf.org/reports/grr/050951.htm.
Rycroft-Malone, J. (2006). The politics of the evidence based practice
movements: Legacies and current challenges. Journal of Research in
Nursing 11, 95108.