Dissemination of health-related research among scientists in three countries: access to resources and current practices

A qualitative exploration of disseminating research findings among public health researchers in China

BACKGROUND

Research dissemination is essential to accelerate the translating of evidence into practice. Little is known about dissemination among Chinese public health researchers. This study aimed to explore the understanding and practices of disseminating research findings and to identify barriers and facilitators that influence dissemination activities to non-research audiences.

METHODS

This study deployed an exploratory qualitative design with purposive and snowball sampling. One focus group with 5 participants and 12 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants working in diverse fields from universities (n = 10), the National Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (n = 4), the Chinese National Cancer Center (n = 1), the Chinese National Center for Cardiovascular Disease (n = 1), and China office of a global research institute (n = 1) from May to December 2021 to reach saturation. Data were initially analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. The designing for dissemination (D4D) logic model was then used to organize themes and subthemes. Two coders independently coded all transcripts and discussed disparities to reach a consensus.

RESULTS

Out of 17 participants, 12 misunderstood the concept of dissemination; 14 had disseminated to non-research audiences: 10 to the public, 10 to practitioners, and 9 to policymakers. We identified multiple barriers to dissemination to non-research audiences across four phases of the D4D logic model, including low priority of dissemination, limited application of D4D strategies, insufficient support from the research organizations, practice settings, and health systems, and overemphasis on academic publications.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a lack of understanding and experience of dissemination, indicating a lack of emphasis on active dissemination in China. We provide implications for raising awareness, building capacity, facilitating multidisciplinary collaboration, providing incentives and infrastructure, changing climate and culture, establishing communication and executive networks, and accelerating systematic shifts in impact focus.

Using Policy Briefs to Communicate Dental Research Findings to Policymakers

OBJECTIVES

New scientific knowledge is not always available to decision makers. Policy briefs are a way that dental researchers can communicate research findings to policymakers. This study compares usefulness of 2 types of policy briefs about sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake and tooth decay.

METHODS

We developed 2 policy brief types (data focused and narrative focused) and emailed a randomly assigned policy brief to 825 policymakers and staff from 3 levels of government (city, county, and state) in Washington State. Participants completed a 22-item online questionnaire. There were 4 study outcomes: whether the brief was understandable, whether the brief was credible, likelihood of use, and likelihood to be shared (each measured on a 5-point Likert-like scale). The t test was used to evaluate whether outcomes differed by policy brief type and government level (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

There were 108 respondents (adjusted response rate 14.6%). About 41.6% of participants were in city government, 26.9% were in county government, and 29.6% were in state government. Participants reported that both data- and narrative-focused briefs were understandable (mean rating [MR] and standard deviation [SD]: 4.15 ± 0.68 and 4.09 ± 0.81, respectively; P = 0.65) and credible (MR and SD: 4.13 ± 0.70 and 4.09 ± 0.70, respectively; P = 0.74), but they were not likely to use (MR and SD: 2.71 ± 1.15 and 2.55 ± 1.28, respectively; P = 0.51) or share it (MR and SD: 2.62 ± 1.04 and 2.66 ± 1.30, respectively; P = 0.87). The likelihood of sharing briefs differed significantly by level of government (P = 0.017). Participants at the state level were more likely to share information from the briefs (mean rating and SD: 3.10 ± 0.80) than city- and county-level participants (MR and SD: 2.62 ± 1.27, and 2.24 ± 1.21, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Both data- and narrative-focused policy briefs may be a useful way to communicate dental research findings to policymakers, but additional steps are needed to ensure that briefs are used and shared.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

Researchers should disseminate their research findings to maximize scientific impact. Our study findings indicate that policy briefs may be a useful way to communicate dental research findings to policymakers, but additional research is needed on the best ways to disseminate findings.

Researchers' views on and practices of knowledge translation: an international survey of transfusion medicine researchers

BACKGROUND

Health research is often driven by the desire to improve the care and health of the community; however, the translation of research evidence into policy and practice is not guaranteed. Knowledge translation (KT) activities, such as dissemination and end-user engagement by researchers, are important to achieving this goal. This study examined researchers' views on and practices of KT in the field of transfusion medicine.

METHODS

An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was distributed to transfusion medicine researchers in May 2022 by emailing corresponding authors of papers in four major blood journals, emailing grant recipients, posting on social media, and through international blood operator networks. Comparative analyses were conducted for career stage, work setting, research type, and KT training.

RESULTS

The final sample included 117 researchers from 33 countries. Most participants reported that research translation was important (86%) and felt it was their responsibility (69%). Fewer than half felt they had the skills to translate their research (45%) or knew which strategies to employ (45%). When examining how research findings are shared, most reported using diffusion activities (86%), including publishing in peer-reviewed journals (74%), or presenting at academic conferences (72%). Fewer used dissemination methods (60%), such as developing educational materials (29%) or writing plain language summaries (30%). Greater use of tailored dissemination strategies was seen among researchers with KT training, whilst traditional diffusion strategies were used more by those working in an academic setting. Most participants had engaged end-users in their research (72%), primarily to consult on a research component (47%) or to involve them in the research process (45%). End-user engagement was greater among researchers with established careers, working in both academic and applied settings, and with KT training.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst participating researchers acknowledged the importance of KT, they typically focused on traditional diffusion strategies. This is despite well-established knowledge of the limited impact of these strategies in achieving KT. Those with KT training were more likely to use tailored dissemination strategies and engage end-users in their research. This demonstrates the value of sharing knowledge from the KT field with health researchers to facilitate KT.

Designing viable, durable physical activity programs for cancer survivors: reflections from program participants and organizational leaders

PURPOSE

Despite recommendations for cancer survivors to participate in routine physical activity (PA), offering programs that fit both survivors' needs and sponsoring organizations' resources remains a challenge. The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of cancer survivors and organizational stakeholders with the intent of developing PA peer-led programs that organizations can implement into their programming.

METHODS

This study explored cancer survivors' (n = 11) and cancer care organizational stakeholders' (n = 27) perspectives on the design and feasibility of PA programs targeted for cancer survivors. Semi-structured interview guides were developed for survivors and stakeholders; interviews lasted approximately 30 min. Two analysts used a thematic analysis approach and independently conducted a line-by-line coding of each transcript. With guidance from a senior analyst, the codes were collapsed into themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

The qualitative analysis of the interview data resulted in seven major themes relating to PA program development and success. Survivor-related themes included the following: (1) developing PA programs based on cancer survivors' characteristics and experiences; (2) perceived value and importance of accessible, face-to-face instruction; (3) ensuring success based on physical abilities and limitations of the survivor; and (4) the value of physician recommendation for PA participation. Organization-related themes included the following: (1) incorporating participant and community input into program offerings; (2) program feasibility and sustainability; (3) incorporating organizational experience when adopting new program initiatives.

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight the challenges of developing viable PA programs for cancer survivors and may guide organizations in future program development and implementation.

Conceptual framework on barriers and facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care and treatment for women: the MATRIx evidence synthesis

Background

Perinatal mental health difficulties can occur during pregnancy or after birth and mental illness is a leading cause of maternal death. It is therefore important to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementing and accessing perinatal mental health care.

Objectives

Our research objective was to develop a conceptual framework of barriers and facilitators to perinatal mental health care (defined as identification, assessment, care and treatment) to inform perinatal mental health services.

Methods

Two systematic reviews were conducted to synthesise the evidence on: Review 1 barriers and facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care; and Review 2 barriers to women accessing perinatal mental health care. Results were used to develop a conceptual framework which was then refined through consultations with stakeholders.

Data sources

Pre-planned searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and CINAHL. Review 2 also included Scopus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Review methods

In Review 1, studies were included if they examined barriers or facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care. In Review 2, systematic reviews were included if they examined barriers and facilitators to women seeking help, accessing help and engaging in perinatal mental health care; and they used systematic search strategies. Only qualitative papers were identified from the searches. Results were analysed using thematic synthesis and themes were mapped on to a theoretically informed multi-level model then grouped to reflect different stages of the care pathway.

Results

Review 1 included 46 studies. Most were carried out in higher income countries and evaluated as good quality with low risk of bias. Review 2 included 32 systematic reviews. Most were carried out in higher income countries and evaluated as having low confidence in the results. Barriers and facilitators to perinatal mental health care were identified at seven levels: Individual (e.g. beliefs about mental illness); Health professional (e.g. confidence addressing perinatal mental illness); Interpersonal (e.g. relationship between women and health professionals); Organisational (e.g. continuity of carer); Commissioner (e.g. referral pathways); Political (e.g. women's economic status); and Societal (e.g. stigma). These factors impacted on perinatal mental health care at different stages of the care pathway. Results from reviews were synthesised to develop two MATRIx conceptual frameworks of the (1) barriers and (2) facilitators to perinatal mental health care. These provide pictorial representations of 66 barriers and 39 facilitators that intersect across the care pathway and at different levels.

Limitations

In Review 1 only 10% of abstracts were double screened and 10% of included papers methodologically appraised by two reviewers. The majority of reviews included in Review 2 were evaluated as having low (n = 14) or critically low (n = 5) confidence in their results. Both reviews only included papers published in academic journals and written in English.

Conclusions

The MATRIx frameworks highlight the complex interplay of individual and system level factors across different stages of the care pathway that influence women accessing perinatal mental health care and effective implementation of perinatal mental health services.

Recommendations for health policy and practice

These include using the conceptual frameworks to inform comprehensive, strategic and evidence-based approaches to perinatal mental health care; ensuring care is easy to access and flexible; providing culturally sensitive care; adequate funding of services; and quality training for health professionals with protected time to do it.

Future work

Further research is needed to examine access to perinatal mental health care for specific groups, such as fathers, immigrants or those in lower income countries.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO: (R1) CRD42019142854; (R2) CRD42020193107.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR 128068) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences

BACKGROUND

Understanding the views of policy-makers and practitioners regarding how best to communicate research evidence is important to support research use in their decision-making.

AIM

To quantify and describe public health policy-makers and practitioners' views regarding the source, content and form of messages describing public health research findings to inform their decision-making. We also sought to examine differences in preferences between public health policy-makers and practitioners.

METHODS

A cross sectional, value-weighting survey of policy-makers and practitioners was conducted. Participants were asked to allocate a proportion of 100 points across different (i) sources of research evidence, (ii) message content and (iii) the form in which evidence is presented. Points were allocated based on their rating of influence, usefulness and preference when making decisions about health policy or practice.

RESULTS

A total of 186 survey responses were received from 90 policy-makers and 96 practitioners. Researchers and government department agencies were the most influential source of research evidence based on mean allocation of points, followed by knowledge brokers, professional peers and associations. Mean point allocation for perceived usefulness of message content was highest for simple summary of key findings and implications, and then evidence-based recommendations and data and statistical summaries. Finally, based on mean scores, policy-makers and practitioners preferred to receive research evidence in the form of peer-reviewed publications, reports, evidence briefs and plain language summaries. There were few differences in scores between policy-makers and practitioners across source, message content or form assessments or those with experience in different behavioural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings should provide a basis for the future development and optimization of dissemination strategies to this important stakeholder group.

Dissemination of public health research evidence and guidelines to Australian Early Childhood Education and Care staff: Views about source, content and format

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Effective dissemination of public health research and evidence-based guidelines to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) staff is critical for promoting research transfer and uptake and achieving positive outcomes for children.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted during August 2021 to March 2022, with a sub-sample of Australian ECEC services participating in a larger survey completed online and via Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview. Survey items assessed: influential source for receiving research, type of content that would influence decisions to adopt research and preferred formats for receiving research.

RESULTS

Overall, 993 service managers or staff from 1984 (50.0%) invited and eligible services completed the larger survey. Of these, 463 randomly allocated services (46.7%) had staff complete the dissemination items. The Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority, ECEC agencies and Government Departments were most frequently selected as influential sources of research evidence. Staff were most interested in content providing evidence-based recommendations for future actions and descriptions of health issues addressed. Workshops or conferences and webinars were the preferred format for receiving research.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the importance of tailoring dissemination strategies to meet ECEC staff needs and engaging influential sources to disseminate research evidence. SO WHAT?: Understanding dissemination preferences of ECEC staff is crucial for supporting uptake of evidence-based health promotion in this setting. By developing tailored strategies based on ECEC preferences, research transfer and evidence-based decision making can be supported more effectively. These findings contribute to bridging the evidence-practice gap and improving the quality of care and health outcomes for children in ECEC settings.

Are public health researchers designing for dissemination? Findings from a national survey in China

BACKGROUND

Research findings are not always disseminated in ways preferred by audiences, and research dissemination is not always considered a priority by researchers. While designing for dissemination (D4D) provides an active process to facilitate effective dissemination, use of these practices in China is largely unknown. We aimed to describe the designing for dissemination activities and practices among public health researchers in China.

METHODS

In January 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in 61 sub-committees of four national academic societies which include a wide range of health disciplines. The sample mainly involved researchers at universities or research institutions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at national or regional levels, and hospitals. Participants completed a 42-item online questionnaire. Respondent characteristics, dissemination routes, dissemination barriers, organizational support, and personal practice of D4D were examined with descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Of 956 respondents, 737 were researchers. Among these researchers, 58.1% had disseminated their research findings. Although there were some variation in the commonly used routes among different groups, academic journals (82.2%) and academic conferences (73.4%) were the most frequently used routes. Barriers to dissemination to non-research audiences existed at both organizational level (e.g., a lack of financial resources, platforms, and collaboration mechanisms) and individual level (e.g., a lack of time, knowledge, and skills, and uncertainty on how to disseminate). About a quarter of respondents (26.7%) had a dedicated person or team for dissemination in their unit or organization, with university researchers reporting a significantly higher proportion than their counterparts (P < 0.05). Only 14.2% of respondents always or usually used frameworks or theories to plan dissemination activities, 26.2% planned dissemination activities early, and 27.1% always or usually involved stakeholders in the research and dissemination process. Respondents with working experience in a practice or policy setting or dissemination and implementation training experience were more likely to apply these D4D strategies (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Considerable room exists for improvement in using impactful dissemination routes, tackling multiple barriers, providing organizational support, and applying D4D strategies among Chinese public health researchers. Our findings have implications for structural changes in academic incentive systems, collaborations and partnerships, funding priorities, and training opportunities.

Improving academic and public health impact of Cochrane public health reviews: what can we learn from bibliographic metrics and author dissemination strategies? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

To facilitate the development of impactful research dissemination strategies, this study aimed to: (i) survey authors of trials included in a sample of Cochrane reviews to describe strategies to disseminate trial findings, and examine their association with academic and policy impacts and (ii) audit academic and policy impact of CPH reviews.

METHODS

Authors of 104 trials within identified Cochrane reviews completed survey items assessing the dissemination strategies. Field weighted citation (FWCI) data extracted from bibliographic databases served as a measure of academic impact of trials and CPH reviews. Policy and practice impacts of trials were assessed during the survey of trial authors using items based on the Payback Framework, and for CPH reviews using 'policy mention' data collected via Altmetric Explorer.

RESULTS

Among the included trials, univariate (but not multivariable) regression models revealed significant associations between the use of dissemination strategies (i.e. posts on social media; workshops with end-users; media-releases) and policy or practice impacts. No significant associations were reported between dissemination strategies and trial FWCI. The mean FWCI of CPH reviews suggest that they are cited 220% more than other reviews in their field.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive dissemination strategies are likely required to maximize the potential the potential impacts of public health research.

From trials to communities: implementation and scale-up of health behaviour interventions

BACKGROUND

To maximise their potential benefits to communities, effective health behaviour interventions need to be implemented, ideally 'at scale', and are often adapted as part of this. To inform future implementation and scale-up efforts, this study broadly sought to understand (i) how often health behaviour interventions are implemented in communities, (ii) the adaptations that occur; (iii) how frequency it occurred 'at scale'; and (iv) factors associated with 'scale-up'.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted of corresponding authors of trials (randomised or non-randomised) assessing the effects of preventive health behaviour interventions. Included studies of relevant Cochrane reviews served as a sampling frame. Participants were asked to report on the implementation and scale-up (defined as investment in large scale delivery by a (non)government organisation) of their intervention in the community following trial completion, adaptations made, and any research dissemination strategies employed. Information was extracted from published reports of the trial including assessments of effectiveness and risk of bias.

RESULTS

Authors of 104 trials completed the survey. Almost half of the interventions were implemented following trial completion (taking on average 19 months), and 54% of those were adapted prior to doing so. The most common adaptations were adding intervention components, and adapting the intervention to fit within the local service setting. Scale-up occurred in 33% of all interventions. There were no significant associations between research trial characteristics such as intervention effectiveness, risk of bias, setting, involvement of end-user, and incidence of scale-up. However the number of research dissemination strategies was positively associated to the odds of an intervention being scaled-up (OR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.88; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptation of implemented trials is often undertaken. Most health behaviour interventions are not implemented or scaled-up following trial completion. The use of a greater number of dissemination strategies may increase the likelihood of scaled up.

Strengthening and promoting digital health practice: results from a Global Digital Health Partnership's survey

Background and objective

The capacity to promote and disseminate the best evidence-based practices in terms of digital health innovations and technologies represents an important goal for countries and governments. To support the digital health maturity across countries the Global Digital Health Partnership (GDHP) was established in 2019. The mission of the GDHP is to facilitate global collaboration and knowledge-sharing in the design of digital health services, through the administration of surveys and white papers.

Objective

The scope of this study is to critically analyze and discuss results from the Evidence and Evaluation GDHP Work Stream's survey, understand how governments and countries intend to address main obstacles to the digital health implementation, identify their strategies for a communication of effective digital health services, and promote the sharing of international based best practices on digital health.

Methods

This survey followed a cross-sectional study approach. A multiple-choice questionnaire was designed to gather data. Choices were extracted from research publications retrieved through a rapid review.

Results

Out of 29 countries receiving the survey, 10 returned it. On a scale from 1 to 5, eHealth systems/platforms (mean = 3.56) were indicated as the most important tool for centralized infrastructure to collect information on digital health, while primary care (mean = 4.0) represented the most voted item for healthcare services to collect information on digital health. Seven Countries out of 10 identified lack of organization, skepticism of clinicians, and accessibility of the population as a barriers to adopt digital health implementation, resulting to be the most voted items. Finally, the most endorsed priorities in digital health for Countries were the adoption of data-driven approaches (6 Countries), and telehealth (5 Countries).

Conclusion

This survey highlighted the main tools and obstacles for countries to promote the implementation of evidence-based digital health innovations. Identifying strategies that would communicate the value of health care information technology to healthcare professionals are particularly imperative. Effective communication programs for clinicians and the general population in addition to improved digital health literacy (both for clinicians and citizens) will be the key for the real implementation of future digital health technologies.

Increased use of knowledge translation strategies is associated with greater research impact on public health policy and practice: an analysis of trials of nutrition, physical activity, sexual health, tobacco, alcohol and substance use interventions

BACKGROUND

Greater use of knowledge translation (KT) strategies is recommended to improve the research impact of public health trials. The purpose of this study was to describe (1) the research impact of setting-based public health intervention trials on public health policy and practice; (2) the association between characteristics of trials and their research impact on public health policy and practice; and (3) the association between the use of KT strategies and research impacts on public health policy and practice.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of authors of intervention trials targeting nutrition, physical activity, sexual health, tobacco, alcohol or substance use. We assessed the use of KT strategies aligned to domains of the Knowledge-To-Action Framework. We defined "research impact" on health policy and practice as any one or more of the following: citation in policy documents or announcements, government reports, training materials, guidelines, textbooks or court rulings; or endorsement by a (non)governmental organization; use in policy or practice decision-making; or use in the development of a commercial resource or service.

RESULTS

Of the included trials, the authors reported that 65% had one or more research impacts. The most frequently reported research impact was citation in a policy document or announcement (46%). There were no significant associations between the effectiveness of the intervention, trial risk of bias, setting or health risk and trial impact. However, for every one unit increase in the total KT score (range 0-8), reflecting greater total KT activity, the odds of a health policy or practice research impact increased by approximately 30% (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.66; p = 0.031). Post hoc examination of KT domain scores suggests that KT actions focused on providing tailored support to facilitate program implementation and greater use of research products and tools to disseminate findings to end-users may be most influential in achieving impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials of public health interventions frequently have public health impacts, and the use of more comprehensive KT strategies may facilitate greater research impact.

Evaluation of a knowledge translation strategy to improve policymaking and practices in health promotion and disease prevention setting in French regions: TC-REG, a realist study

OBJECTIVE

This paper presents the results of a realist evaluation of a knowledge translation (KT) intervention implemented in the field of health promotion and disease prevention at the local level in France.

DESIGN

Realist evaluation study.

SETTING

The target population comprised decision-makers and field professionals working in prevention and public health services operating in regions of France (ie, ARS (Agence Régionale de Santé: regional health agency), IREPS (Instance Régionale d'Education et de Promotion de la Santé pour tous: regional organisation for health promotion and education) and their partners).

PARTICIPANTS

This evaluation was based on data collected from 2 seminars, 82 interviews, 18 observations and 4 focus groups over 18 months.

INTERVENTION

The TC-REG intervention aimed to increase the use of evidence in cancer prevention, health promotion and disease prevention across four geographical regions in France. The intervention combined various activities: Supporting access to and adaptation of usable evidence, strengthening professionals' skills in analysing, adopting and using policy briefs, and facilitating the use of evidence in organisations and processes.

RESULTS

The collected data was used to define favourable/unfavourable contexts for the use of scientific data and mechanisms to be activated to encourage the use of scientific knowledge. From these raw results eight final refined middle-range theories were defined. Organised around the mechanisms to be activated, these middle-range theories illustrate how to activate knowledge and under what conditions. These analyses provided a basis for the production of seven operational and contextualised recommendations to develop KT to inform regional policymaking regarding health promotion and disease prevention.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained from the analyses led us to formulate two perspectives of an operational nature for the benefit of those involved in prevention and health promotion.

Training researchers in dissemination of study results to research participants and communities

Dissemination of research beyond the academic community is an ethical responsibility of researchers and necessary in translational research to help ensure the uptake of research findings to improve health outcomes. Often, partnerships between community and academicians do not include research dissemination plans, possibly reflecting researchers not knowing how to create these plans. This manuscript details the development process of a research dissemination training module for academicians and researchers. This training was conceptualized and developed by Core faculty and staff. Development steps were: (a) identifying researchers' dissemination needs using the Core Investigator Survey; (b) identifying communities dissemination needs/preferences using feedback from our community advisory board; (c) conducting a literature search to identify dissemination concepts from researchers and community perspectives; (d) developing the training module; (e) conducting a cognitive review with one basic science researcher and one community-based participatory researcher; (f) evaluating the training; and (g) finalizing the training module. Training attendees included 1 clinical and 3 basic science clinical researchers, a biomedical postdoctoral fellow, and 10 research staff. Of those completing the feedback survey, 60% had some experience with research dissemination. As a result of training, more than 50% of respondents strongly agreed that as researchers they have a clear understanding of dissemination, a greater understanding of the dissemination process, how to identify stakeholders and successfully develop a dissemination plan. While disseminating research findings beyond academic publications may be new to some researchers, this training provided the tools to implement dissemination practices in their current and future research.

Improving knowledge translation for increased engagement and impact in healthcare

Ineffective knowledge dissemination contributes to clinical practice and service improvements not being realised. Meaningful knowledge translation can occur through the understanding and matching of appropriate communication mediums that are relevant for different stakeholders or audiences. To this end, we present a dissemination instrument, the 'REAch and Diffusion of health iMprovement Evidence' (README) checklist, for the communication of research findings, integrating both traditional and newer communication mediums. Additionally, we propose a 'Strategic Translation and Engagement Planning' (STEP) tool, for use when deciding which mediums to select. The STEP tool challenges the need for communicating complex and simple information against the desire for passive or active stakeholder interaction. Used collaboratively by academics and health professionals, README and STEP can promote co-production of research, subsequent diffusion of knowledge, and develop the capacity and skills of all stakeholders.

Perspectives of scientists on disseminating research findings to non-research audiences

BACKGROUND

Little is known about practices used to disseminate findings to non-research, practitioner audiences. This study describes the perspectives, experience and activities of dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists around disseminating their research findings.

METHODS

The study explored D&I scientists' experiences and recommendations for assessment of dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Existing list serves were used to recruit scientists. Respondents were asked three open-ended questions on an Internet survey about dissemination activities, recommendations for changing evaluation systems and suggestions to improve their own dissemination of their work.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 159 scientists reporting some training, funding and/or publication history in D&I. Three themes emerged across each of the three open-ended questions. Question 1 on evaluation generated the themes of: 1a) promotional review; 1b) funding requirements and 1c) lack of acknowledgement of dissemination activities. Question 2 on recommended changes generated the themes of: 2a) dissemination as a requirement of the academic promotion process; 2b) requirement of dissemination plan and 2c) dissemination metrics. Question 3 on personal changes to improve dissemination generated the themes of: 3a) allocation of resources for dissemination activities; 3b) emerging dissemination channels and 3c) identify and address issues of priority for stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings revealed different types of issues D&I scientists encounter when disseminating findings to clinical, public health or policy audiences and their suggestions to improve the process. Future research should consider key requirements which determine academic promotion and grant funding as an opportunity to expand dissemination efforts.

Review of published evidence on knowledge translation capacity, practice and support among researchers and research institutions in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Knowledge translation (KT) is a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to yield beneficial outcomes for society. Effective KT requires researchers to play an active role in promoting evidence uptake. This paper presents a systematised review of evidence on low- and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers' KT capacity, practice and interventions for enhancing their KT practice (support) with the aim of identifying gaps and informing future research and interventions.

METHODS

An electronic search for peer-reviewed publications focusing on LMIC researchers' KT capacity, practice and support across all academic fields, authored in English and from the earliest records available to February 2019, was conducted using PubMed and Scopus. Selected studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, data pertaining to publication characteristics and study design extracted, and an a priori thematic analysis of reported research findings completed.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 334 screened articles, of which 66 met the inclusion criteria. Most (n = 43) of the articles presented original research findings, 22 were commentaries and 1 was a structured review; 47 articles reported on researchers' KT practice, 12 assessed the KT capacity of researchers or academic/research institutions and 9 reported on KT support for researchers. More than half (59%) of the articles focused on sub-Saharan Africa and the majority (91%) on health research. Most of the primary studies used the case study design (41%). The findings suggest that LMIC researchers rarely conduct KT and face a range of barriers at individual and institutional levels that limit their KT practice, including inadequate KT knowledge and skills, particularly for communicating research and interacting with research end-users, insufficient funding, and inadequate institutional guidelines, structures and incentives promoting KT practice. Furthermore, the evidence-base on effective interventions for enhancing LMIC researchers' KT practice is insufficient and largely of weak quality.

CONCLUSIONS

More high-quality research on researchers' KT capacity, practice and effective KT capacity strengthening interventions is needed. Study designs that extend beyond case studies and descriptive studies are recommended, including better designed evaluation studies, e.g. use of realist approaches, pragmatic trials, impact evaluations, implementation research and participatory action research.

National Working Group on the RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Goals, Resources, and Future Directions

The National Working Group on RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework (herein Workgroup) was established in 2004 to support the application of the framework and advance dissemination and implementation science (D&I). Workgroup members developed and disseminated products and resources (and continue to do so) to advocate for consistent application of RE-AIM and allow for cross study comparisons. The purpose of this paper is to summarize key Workgroup activities, products, and services (e.g., webinars, consultations, planning tools) and enhance bidirectional communication between the Workgroup and RE-AIM users. The ultimate goal of this work is to serve as a forum for dissemination to improve the balance between RE-AIM user demand (needs) and the currently limited RE-AIM Workgroup supply (consultation and resources) to demonstrate and expand the utility of RE-AIM as a D&I planning and evaluation framework. A summary of resources is provided as well as specific examples of how the Workgroup has been responsive to user needs.

Pathways for translating behavioral medicine research to practice and policy

The diversity of behavioral medicine, including investigators' disciplines, health conditions, settings, and intervention approaches, creates challenges for promoting the translation of research to practice and policy. Most papers on research translation focus on one pathway, so there is a need for a model that considers multiple pathways of research translation. The purpose is to propose a model of translating research to practice and policy that is broad enough to apply to many behavioral medicine scenarios and suggests options for behavioral medicine investigators to become engaged in research translation. This is a commentary, with examples drawn from scientific and gray literature. A model is proposed that describes five pathways of research translation: research, practice, business, policy, and public opinion. Target audiences, approaches, communication materials, and examples are suggested for each translation pathway. Resources are available for overcoming barriers to research translation. The main benefit of becoming engaged in research translation is a higher likelihood of health impact from the research. Researchers can choose one or more of the pathways of research translation that are suitable for their situation.

Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science

The gap between discovery of public health knowledge and application in practice settings and policy development is due in part to ineffective dissemination. This article describes (1) lessons related to dissemination from related disciplines (eg, communication, agriculture, social marketing, political science), (2) current practices among researchers, (3) key audience characteristics, (4) available tools for dissemination, and (5) measures of impact. Dissemination efforts need to take into account the message, source, audience, and channel. Practitioners and policy makers can be more effectively reached via news media, social media, issue or policy briefs, one-on-one meetings, and workshops and seminars. Numerous “upstream” and “midstream” indicators of impact include changes in public perception or awareness, greater use of evidence-based interventions, and changes in policy. By employing ideas outlined in this article, scientific discoveries are more likely to be applied in public health agencies and policy-making bodies.

[Barriers perceived by health directors for evidenced-based decision-makingObstáculos percibidos por los directores de servicios de salud para la toma de decisiones basada en la evidencia]

Objetivo.

Identificar as barreiras para tomada de decisão baseada em evidências na prevenção de doenças crônicas não transmissíveis segundo a percepção dos administradores de saúde no estado do Paraná.

Métodos.

Foram realizadas entrevistas por telefone com 20 diretores de regionais de saúde, por meio de um roteiro semiestruturado. As entrevistas foram realizadas em 2015 e tiveram duração média de 23 minutos. Após transcrição, o conteúdo das entrevistas foi analisado para identificação de categorias.

Resultados.

Foram identificadas duas categorias de barreiras, organizacionais e pessoais. As barreiras organizacionais mais frequentes foram: “falta de planejamento e gestão” e “características regionais e culturais da população”. As barreiras pessoais mais frequentes foram: “falta de incentivo e dificuldades para trabalhar com evidências científicas” e “falta de capacitação e qualificação profissional”.

Conclusão.

Sugere-se reforçar o apoio aos profissionais de saúde através de cursos de capacitação técnica que envolvam esforços políticos e científicos e que atendam as prioridades de saúde da comunidade.

Building capacity for dissemination and implementation research: one university's experience

Background

While dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has grown rapidly, there is an ongoing need to understand how to build and sustain capacity in individuals and institutions conducting research. There are three inter-related domains for capacity building: people, settings, and activities. Since 2008, Washington University in St. Louis has dedicated significant attention and resources toward building D&I research capacity. This paper describes our process, challenges, and lessons with the goal of informing others who may have similar aims at their own institution.

Activities

An informal collaborative, the Washington University Network for Dissemination and Implementation Research (WUNDIR), began with a small group and now has 49 regular members. Attendees represent a wide variety of settings and content areas and meet every 6 weeks for half-day sessions. A logic model organizes WUNDIR inputs, activities, and outcomes. A mixed-methods evaluation showed that the network has led to new professional connections and enhanced skills (e.g., grant and publication development). As one of four, ongoing, formal programs, the Dissemination and Implementation Research Core (DIRC) was our first major component of D&I infrastructure. DIRC’s mission is to accelerate the public health impact of clinical and health services research by increasing the engagement of investigators in later stages of translational research. The aims of DIRC are to advance D&I science and to develop and equip researchers with tools for D&I research. As a second formal component, the Washington University Institute for Public Health has provided significant support for D&I research through pilot projects and a small grants program. In a third set of formal programs, two R25 training grants (one in mental health and one in cancer) support post-doctoral scholars for intensive training and mentoring in D&I science. Finally, our team coordinates closely with D&I functions within research centers across the university. We share a series of challenges and potential solutions.

Conclusion

Our experience in developing D&I research at Washington University in St. Louis shows how significant capacity can be built in a relatively short period of time. Many of our ideas and ingredients for success can be replicated, tailored, and improved upon by others.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0634-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.