Advancing a mission of translational intervention science: Comment on premature implementation.

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.