Grounded theories have unique potential for influencing clinical practice. The theory has grab (Glaser, 1978); it resonates for those who have experienced the situation that the theory explains, or know or practice with those who have. Because grounded theories can explain, interpret, and predict human behavior in specific social contexts, they work and have practical utility (Glaser, 1978). A fundamental premise of grounded theory research is that people actively shape the worlds they live in through the process of symbolic interaction and that their viewpoints are vital to generating useful knowledge of process, interaction and social change (Glaser, 1992; Strauss, 1987). “Nursing is a practice discipline whose essence lies in processes” (Stern & Pyles, 1986, p. 1). For clinicians, the theoretical rendering of what is most problematic in the study situation and how it is processed by participants offers insights into how and when a clinician might intervene. Thus grounded theory lends itself to conceptual utilization, that is, a rethinking of situational phenomena that may or may not lead to change in action (Estabrooks, 2001). Indeed, the effects of grounded theories on nursing practice appear to have been minor (Hall & May, 2001; Morse, Penrod, & Hupcey, 2000). Poor uptake is not a problem specific to research evidence with qualitative origin (Estabrooks, 2001). However, translation of grounded theories by researchers is essential to facilitate their utilization in concrete applications such as clinical protocols, decision trees, or practice guidelines (Estabrooks, 2001; Sandelowski, 2004). Little has been written about how such purposeful translation takes place. Yet, as Thorne (2011) reminds us, nurses need to understand phenomena “in a way that will be applicable to the diversity of context and complexity within the actual real-time setting” (p. 449). Thorne calls upon researchers to mobilize research toward “meaningful social and pragmatic action” (p. 450). Importantly, with grounded theory, the work of knowledge translation not only makes the 91theory more accessible to practitioners; it also has potential to add breadth and depth to the original theory through the constant comparative process with multiple sources of new data. In this chapter, we discuss the processes, challenges, and advantages of translating our theory Strengthening Capacity to Limit Intrusion (SCLI) (Ford-Gilboe, Wuest, & Merritt-Gray, 2005; Wuest, Ford-Gilboe, Merritt-Gray, & Berman, 2003) into a primary healthcare intervention, the Intervention for Health Enhancement After Leaving (iHEAL) (Ford-Gilboe, Merritt-Gray, Varcoe, & Wuest, 2011), and conducting initial feasibility studies using the iHEAL with women who have left their abusive partners in the past three years.