Minnesota Institute of Public Health

When MIPH began its federal work creating the Central Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (Central CAPT) in 1997, we learned then-CSAP Director Karol Kumpfer had an image in mind. There was this gap, this chasm between research and practice in prevention. Dr. Kumpfer portrayed it as researchers and practitioners gazing at each other from either side of a huge cliff, with no bridge in between. CAPT was to become the bridge.

It has.

Today, proud to say, MIPH is the newly named Central Regional Expert Team (Central RET) as part of a new National CAPT system dedicated to applying prevention research that works.

The chasm started to dissolve when people stopped discussing “research to practice” and instead bridge research with practice. The “aha” learning experience was, practitioners were not merely slow scientists. Often, practitioners could inform researchers about what needed further study; consequently, prevention began working better. The knowledge exchange became a two-way street.

Why does some research get applied in community practice, and why does other good research fail to transmit?

My view is, new practice driven from research must be established as both effective and user-friendly to survive the journey. Also, the need for additional research is heavily influenced by influential advocates and active community leaders.

A previous blog discussed fidelity and adaptation. The world is a stage, not a pure laboratory. And community preventionists are learning to stick with what works, not simply what’s popular, or well marketed.

What’s your best example of bridging research and practice?

-JJ