We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Comment and Response |

Efficacy vs Effectiveness

Sherry L. Pagoto, PhD1; Stephenie C. Lemon, PhD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(13):1262-1263. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6521.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


To the Editor The recently published study by Ma et al1 (Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions to Treat Elevated Cardiometabolic Risk in Primary Care [E-LITE] trial) tested 2 versions of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in the primary care setting and showed that both coach-based and DVD-based versions were superior to usual care. The investigators described their study as a “primary care-based translational intervention trial” and that these interventions have now been “proven effective in a primary care setting.”1(p113) We contend that the E-LITE study is an efficacy trial that has once again confirmed that the DPP works. That it works when DVD-delivered is promising because this is less intensive than a coach-based intervention. However, the trial actually offers little insight into adapting these interventions in a real-world primary care setting with real patients with metabolic syndrome. Effectiveness studies are designed to determine whether interventions, already proven efficacious under ideal circumstances, are effective when delivered in real-world settings, by staff in those settings, and with broad, representative populations.2 The E-LITE trial did not employ primary care staff to implement the interventions but instead used staff hired by the research team. Even the DVD-based intervention required staff to send reminders and field questions from participants. They also recruited a highly selective population by using 31 inclusion and exclusion criteria3 and randomizing only 15% of those screened by telephone. It remains unclear to what extent this sample represents typical patients with metabolic syndrome. The only real-world aspect of the study seems to be that the interventions were physically performed in the primary care clinic as opposed to a research laboratory. This lends very little insight into how to address the key challenges of conducting such interventions in the primary care setting, including identifying staff who can deliver the intervention, determining how staff time will be compensated, establishing whether primary care patients with medical and psychiatric comorbidities will participate and benefit, and determining how to feasibly incorporate the intervention into standard practice. Performing efficacy trials in clinical settings with study staff and highly selective study samples does not inform practice significantly more so than efficacy trials in laboratory settings that also use study staff and highly selective samples. To realize the potential of the efficacious lifestyle interventions, trials are needed that use real-world settings, employ staff in those settings, impose few exclusion criteria, and are designed to be integrated and delivered within the context of routine care by staff who could realistically and routinely deliver it.4


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





July 8, 2013
Jun Ma, MD, PhD; M. Kaye Kramer, DrPH, MPH, RN; Paul Ciechanowski, MD, MPH
1Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute and Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
2Diabetes Prevention Support Center, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
3Training Xchange, Center for Commercialization, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(13):1263-1264. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.7065.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...