Comment and Response |

Efficacy vs Effectiveness—Reply

Jun Ma, MD, PhD1; M. Kaye Kramer, DrPH, MPH, RN2; Paul Ciechanowski, MD, MPH3
[+] Author Affiliations
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.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In Reply The comment by Pagoto and Lemon raises several important considerations articulated well by others relating to the design, conduct, and reporting of clinical research studies to better inform clinical and policy decisions. Such studies may be simply differentiated as efficacy (explanatory) vs effectiveness (pragmatic) ones, but rarely studies are purely explanatory or pragmatic.1,2 Instead, choices about participants, interventions, delivery agents, retention and fidelity assurance strategies, and analysis approaches call for characterization of clinical research designs as a multidimensional continuum, not a dichotomy, and the levels of pragmatism may vary across these dimensions within any given study. “This multidimensional structure should be borne in mind by trial designers and end-users alike so that overly simplistic labeling of trials can be avoided,” as suggested Thorpe et al.1(pE57)


Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





July 8, 2013
Sherry L. Pagoto, PhD; Stephenie C. Lemon, PhD
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.
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.
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.
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment


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

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

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

See Also...