http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7092-7739
REFERENCES
- Baerøe, K. 2014. Translational ethics: An analytical framework of translational movements between theory and practice and a sketch of a comprehensive approach. BMC Medical Ethics 15(1):71.
- Bauer, M. S., L. Damschroder, H. Hagedorn, J. Smith, and A. M. Kilbourne. 2015. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychology 3(1):32.
- Cribb, A. 2010. Translational ethics? The theory-practice gap in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 36(4):207–210.
- Glasgow, R. E., L. M. Klesges, D. A. Dzewaltowski, P. A. Estabrooks, and T. M. Vogt. 2006. Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: Using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Education Research 21(5):688–694.
- Mathews, D. J., D. M. Hester, J. Kahn, et al. 2016. A conceptual model for the translation of bioethics research and scholarship. Hastings Center Report 46(5):34–39.
- Meyers, D. C., J. A. Durlak, and A. Wandersman. 2012. The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology 50(3–4):462–480.
- Nilsen, P. 2015. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science 10(1):53.
- Proctor, E., H. Silmere, R. Raghavan, et al. 2011. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 38(2):65–76.
- Sisk, B., J. Mozersky, A. L. Antes, and J. M. DuBois. 2020. The “ought-is” problem: An implementation science framework for translating ethical norms into practice. The American Journal of Bioethics 20(4): 62–70.
- Solomon, M. Z. 2005. Realizing bioethics’ goals in practice: Ten ways ‘is’ can help ‘ought. Hastings Center Report 35(4):40–47.