Replies to comments made by Kenneth E. Freedland et al. (see record 2024-89430-002) on Rinad S. Beida, Lisa Saldana, and Rachel C. Shelton's original article (see record 2023-46817-001). In reading Freedland et al.'s (2024) commentary, it appears that their lens prioritizes internal validity and more explanatory and mechanistic work. While we also value these scientific goals and concur that the approaches they identify are clearly methodologically rigorous, we do not think the approaches will substantially reduce the unacceptable translation gap or address the fundamental issues of context. Our approach recognizes that there is tremendous value in cocreating solutions and interventions with patients, clinicians, and community members in the settings where we are seeking to promote health and address health inequities, and questions traditional assumptions and paradigms that scientists "know best" have effective solutions or should hold all of the power and knowledge (Brownson et al., 2022; Sanchez et al., 2023; Shelton, Adsul, & Oh, 2021; Shelton, Adsul, Oh, et al., 2021). We believe it is critical that we expand the pathways through which we advance intervention science in a meaningful and impactful way, and with more explicit attention to issues of context, equity, engagement, and external validity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

推进转化干预科学的使命：对过早实施的评论。


对 Kenneth E. Freedland 等人的评论的答复。 （请参阅记录 2024-89430-002）关于 Rinad S. Beida、Lisa Saldana 和 Rachel C. Shelton 的原始文章（请参阅记录 2023-46817-001）。在阅读 Freedland 等人（2024）的评论时，他们的观点似乎优先考虑内部有效性以及更具解释性和机械性的工作。虽然我们也重视这些科学目标，并同意它们所确定的方法在方法论上显然是严格的，但我们认为这些方法不会实质性地减少不可接受的翻译差距或解决上下文的基本问题。我们的方法认识到，在我们寻求促进健康和解决健康不平等问题的环境中，与患者、临床医生和社区成员共同创造解决方案和干预措施具有巨大价值，并对科学家“最了解”有效的传统假设和范式提出质疑解决方案或应该拥有所有的权力和知识（Brownson et al., 2022; Sanchez et al., 2023; Shelton, Adsul, & Oh, 2021; Shelton, Adsul, Oh, et al., 2021）。我们认为，至关重要的是，我们必须扩大以有意义和有影响力的方式推进干预科学的途径，并更加明确地关注背景、公平、参与和外部有效性问题。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。