agreed-on evidence’ about interventions and then pushing that evidence into policy formulation and implementation has two important drawbacks. First, this approach does not address how policies and programmes are to be developed when there are evidence gaps, nor is this approach suited for dealing with complexity in causation or interventions and the importance of the social and epidemiological context. Second, this approach tends to separate researchers from those engaged in programme development and implementation. They therefore recommend emphasising a paradigm of ‘getting research out of practice’ that engages scientists and programme planners and implementers jointly to develop and refine hypotheses about the impact of an intervention strategy, and focuses on operational research, process evaluation and proper outcome evaluation to build the knowledge base further about what works in different contexts and why. We strongly endorse the approach advocated by Parkhurst and colleagues. 7 In
[1]
L. Hirsch.
Competing interests: none declared.
,
2006
.
[2]
D. Serwadda,et al.
The history and challenge of HIV prevention
,
2008,
The Lancet.
[3]
J. Parkhurst,et al.
Getting research into policy, or out of practice, in HIV?
,
2010,
The Lancet.
[4]
R. Horton,et al.
Putting prevention at the forefront of HIV/AIDS
,
2008,
The Lancet.
[5]
S. Bautista-Arredondo,et al.
Making HIV prevention programmes work
,
2008,
The Lancet.
[6]
P. Piot,et al.
Coming to terms with complexity: a call to action for HIV prevention
,
2008,
The Lancet.
[7]
D. Serwadda,et al.
Biomedical interventions to prevent HIV infection: evidence, challenges, and way forward
,
2008,
The Lancet.