Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review

Acceptability and feasibility of policy implementation strategies for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services

Background

This study's aims are to: (1) Compare the acceptability and feasibility of five types of implementation strategies that could be deployed to increase the reach of evidence-based practices (EBPs) with revenue from policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services, and (2) Illustrate how definitions of implementation strategies and measures of acceptability and feasibility can be used in policy-focused implementation science research.

Methods

Web-based surveys of public agency and community organization professionals involved with earmarked tax policy implementation were completed in 2022-2023 (N = 211, response rate = 24.9%). Respondents rated the acceptability and feasibility of five types of implementation strategies (dissemination, implementation process, integration, capacity-building, and scale-up). Aggregate acceptability and feasibility scores were calculated for each type of strategy (scoring range 4-20). Analyses of variance compared scores across strategies and between organizational actor types.

Findings

For acceptability, capacity-building strategies had the highest rating (M = 16.3, SD = 3.0), significantly higher than each of the four other strategies, p ≤ . 004), and scale-up strategies had the lowest rating (M = 15.6). For feasibility, dissemination strategies had the highest rating (M = 15.3, significantly higher than three of the other strategies, p ≤ .002) and scale-up strategies had the lowest rating (M = 14.4).

Conclusions

Capacity-building and dissemination strategies may be well-received and readily deployed by policy implementers to support EBPs implementation with revenue from taxes earmarked for behavioral health services. Adapting definitions of implementation strategies for policy-focused topics, and applying established measures of acceptability and feasibility to these strategies, demonstrates utility as an approach to advance research on policy-focused implementation strategies.

Xylazine and Adulterants in the Evolving Drug Supply: Urgent Call for Responsive Education Models

Novel adulterants and synthetic substances are rapidly infiltrating the US drug supply causing new clinical harms. There is an urgent need for responsive education and training to address these evolving harms and mitigate new risks. Since 2020, xylazine, a veterinary tranquilizer, has become increasingly common in the illicit opioid supply, especially alongside fentanyl. Training and technical assistance (TTA) programs employing an adaptive model can quickly disseminate emerging information and provide the tools to respond effectively. We describe our TTA program's experience developing and delivering virtual instructor-led xylazine training to a diverse group of addiction care professionals. The training objectives included the following: (1) introducing epidemiologic trends, pharmacology, and existing literature related to xylazine; (2) reviewing xylazine-associated harms and management; and (3) discussing harm reduction strategies related to xylazine use. We conducted 14 training sessions between October 2022 and July 2023, which were attended by over 2000 individuals across 49 states. We review our experience developing innovative training content and managing flexible training logistics and highlight our lessons learned, including targeting multidisciplinary professionals, leveraging online synchronous delivery methods, and a need for sustainable funding for TTA programs.

Understanding the Gap: A Cross-Sectional Survey of ELSI Scholars' Dissemination Practices and Translation Goals

BACKGROUND

Researchers engaged in the study of the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genetics and genomics are often publicly funded and intend their work to be in the public interest. These features of U.S. ELSI research create an imperative for these scholars to demonstrate the public utility of their work and the expectation that they engage in research that has potential to inform policy or practice outcomes. In support of the fulfillment of this "translational mandate," the Center for ELSI Resources and Analysis (CERA), funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), aims to facilitate community-informed, ELSI research results synthesis and dissemination. However, little is known about how ELSI research scholars define the goals of translation and imagine the intended users of their research findings.

METHODOLOGY

We distributed a Qualtrics survey to ELSI scholars that aimed to determine: (1) researchers' expectations for their research findings in relation to policy or practice outcomes, (2) the stakeholder groups researchers believe could benefit from their research findings, and (3) the methods researchers use to foster the uptake of their findings by those stakeholders.

RESULTS

Most ELSI researchers surveyed thought there were stakeholders that could benefit from their research findings, including health care professionals, at-risk individuals, patients, and their family members, policy-makers, and researchers/scientists, and expected their research findings to inform the creation or revision of laws, policies, or practice guidelines. Most researchers planned to disseminate findings directly to relevant stakeholders, with fewer expecting dissemination support from research funders, universities, or other entities.

CONCLUSION

The broad range of research topics, disciplines, and set of potential end users represented in ELSI reseach complicate the work of a knowledge broker. Nonetheless, the CERA can play an important role in disseminating ELSI results to relevant stakeholders. Further research should explore outreach mechanisms.

Effectively communicating with local policymakers: a randomized trial of policy brief dissemination to address obesity

Introduction

Evidence-based policies are a powerful tool for impacting health and addressing obesity. Effectively communicating evidence to policymakers is critical to ensure evidence is incorporated into policies. While all public health is local, limited knowledge exists regarding effective approaches for improving local policymakers' uptake of evidence-based policies.

Methods

Local policymakers were randomized to view one of four versions of a policy brief (usual care, narrative, risk-framing, and narrative/risk-framing combination). They then answered a brief survey including questions about their impressions of the brief, their likelihood of using it, and how they determine legislative priorities.

Results

Responses from 331 participants indicated that a majority rated local data (92%), constituent needs/opinions (92%), and cost-effectiveness data (89%) as important or very important in determining what issues they work on. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that briefs were understandable (87%), believable (77%), and held their attention (74%) with no brief version rated significantly higher than the others. Across the four types of briefs, 42% indicated they were likely to use the brief. Logistic regression models showed that those indicating that local data were important in determining what they work on were over seven times more likely to use the policy brief than those indicating that local data were less important in determining what they work on (aOR = 7.39, 95% CI = 1.86,52.57).

Discussion

Among local policymakers in this study there was no dominant format or type of policy brief; all brief types were rated similarly highly. This highlights the importance of carefully crafting clear, succinct, credible, and understandable policy briefs, using different formats depending on communication objectives. Participants indicated a strong preference for receiving materials incorporating local data. To ensure maximum effect, every effort should be made to include data relevant to a policymaker's local area in policy communications.

The effectiveness of interventions to disseminate the results of non-commercial randomised clinical trials to healthcare professionals: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how to disseminate the results of randomised controlled trials effectively to health professionals and policymakers to improve treatment, care or prevention through changing policy and practice. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of different methods of dissemination of clinical research results to professional audiences.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the published and grey literature from 2000 to 2022 for studies assessing different approaches for disseminating clinical study results to professional audiences (health professionals, policymakers and guideline developers). Two reviewers assessed potentially relevant full texts for inclusion. We grouped studies by intervention type, synthesising findings using effect direction plots. Outcomes were grouped into out-takes (e.g. awareness, knowledge, understanding), outcomes (e.g. attitude changes) and impact (changes in policy/practice). The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

Our search identified 13,264 unique records, of which 416 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Of 60 studies that were identified as eligible for inclusion, 20 evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to disseminate clinical research results (13 RCTs, 2 observational studies, 3 pre- and post-intervention surveys and 2 cross-sectional surveys). Studies were grouped by intervention: 7 studies that involved face-to-face meetings between the target audience and trained educators were classified as 'outreach interventions'; 5 studies that provided a summary format for systematic review findings (e.g. summary of findings tables) were grouped together. There was high certainty evidence of a small beneficial impact of outreach interventions on health and moderate certainty evidence of impact on practice (mostly prescribing). There was no evidence of impact on policy and very low certainty around benefits on outcomes and out-takes. We found no consistent benefits of summary formats for systematic review results on outcomes or out-takes (moderate quality evidence). Other interventions with less evidence are reported in the Additional Materials.

CONCLUSIONS

Outreach interventions to disseminate clinical research results can lead to changes in practice and improvements in health. However, these interventions can be resource-intensive. Investment is vital to identify and implement effective and cost-effective ways to disseminate results, so that the potential benefits of trials to patients can be realised.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42019137364.

Bridging research-policy gaps: An integrated approach

It is often difficult for policymakers to make informed decisions without evidence-based support, resulting in potentially ineffective policies. The purpose of this article is to advocate for collaboration and communication between researchers and policymakers to enhance evidence-based policymaking. The workshop hosted by the International Society of Environmental Epidemiology-Eastern Mediterranean Chapter further explores the challenges of connecting researchers and policymakers. The article highlights the gap between researchers and policymakers, attributed to different visions and objectives, time constraints, and communication issues. To strengthen the research-policy interface, strategies such as enhanced communication skills and early involvement of policymakers in research are suggested. The article proposes an integrated model combining the Collaborative Knowledge Model and the policy entrepreneurship mindset, emphasizing the co-creation of knowledge and evidence-based policy solutions. The use of this model can lead to the development of evidence-based policies that effectively address societal needs.

Bridging the gap between pregnancy loss research and policy and practice: insights from a qualitative survey with knowledge users

BACKGROUND

The loss of a pregnancy or the death of baby around the time of their birth can have profound impacts on parents, families and staff involved. There is much opportunity to enhance the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions to enhance service provision, lived experiences and outcomes. Challenges exist to translating pregnancy loss research evidence into policy and practice, however. Pregnancy loss remains a neglected area of research and resourcing and is steeped in stigma. While barriers and facilitators to the use of research evidence by decision-makers in public health and health services are well documented, we aimed to better understand the factors that influence the translation of pregnancy loss research into practice and policy.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative online survey of pregnancy loss research knowledge users in Ireland, identified through our clinical and academic networks, between January and March 2022. The survey comprised ten questions, with three closed questions, informed by the Knowledge Translation Planning Template©. Questions included who could benefit from pregnancy loss research, perceived barriers and facilitators to the use of research evidence and preferred knowledge translation strategies. We analysed data using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We included data from 46 participants in our analysis, from which we generated two central themes. The first-'End the silence; stigma and inequality around pregnancy loss to enhance awareness and understanding, public health and services and supports'-addresses issues related to the stigma, sensitivities and silence, lack of awareness and understanding, and lack of relevance or priority afforded to pregnancy loss. The second theme-'Use a range of tailored, accessible approaches to engage a large, diverse range of knowledge users'-highlights the need to use relevant, accessible, and engaging information, resources or materials in knowledge translation efforts, and a variety of tailored approaches to suit different audiences, including materials, workshops/webinars, media, knowledge brokers and champions or opinion leaders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis provides rich insights into the barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation in the field of pregnancy loss research. We identified key strategies that can be used to inform knowledge translation planning in Ireland, and which have international applicability.

Methods and measures to evaluate the impact of participatory model building on public policymakers: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Public policymakers are increasingly engaged in participatory model building processes, such as group model building. Understanding the impacts of policymaker participation in these processes on policymakers is important given that their decisions often have significant influence on the dynamics of complex systems that affect health. Little is known about the extent to which the impacts of participatory model building on public policymakers have been evaluated or the methods and measures used to evaluate these impacts.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A scoping review protocol was developed with the objectives of: (1) scoping studies that have evaluated the impacts of facilitated participatory model building processes on public policymakers who participated in these processes; and (2) describing methods and measures used to evaluate impacts and the main findings of these evaluations. The Joanna Briggs Institute's Population, Concept, Context framework was used to formulate the article identification process. Seven electronic databases-MEDLINE (Ovid), ProQuest Health and Medical, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Complete and PsycInfo-will be searched. Identified articles will be screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist for scoping reviews will be used and reported. A data extraction tool will collect information across three domains: study characteristics, methods and measures, and findings. The review will be conducted using Covidence, a systematic review data management platform.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The scoping review produced will generate an overview of how public policymaker engagement in participatory model building processes has been evaluated. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and to communities of practice that convene policymakers in participatory model building processes. This review will not require ethics approval because it is not human subject research.

COVID-19 pandemic and mental health among Hispanic/Latino/a immigrants in the USA: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has had drastic effects on worldwide mental health and laid bare health disparities and inequities among marginalised groups and racial/ethnic minoritised communities in the USA. This is especially the case among Hispanic/Latino/a immigrants who face numerous structural and socioeconomic barriers to well-being. The increased mental health burden on Hispanic/Latino/a immigrants may have far reaching effects if left unaddressed. Thus, by understanding further Hispanic/Latino/a immigrant mental health during the pandemic, communities and health providers may be able to better address this growing issue. This scoping review aims to assess and outline the current literature on the pandemic's effects on Hispanic/Latino/a immigrant mental health in the USA, identify research gaps and areas of urgent concern, and inform future research and public health interventions and guidelines.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology will be conducted. The PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science: Core Collection databases and five grey literature sources will be searched for articles published in English from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022. Two independent reviewers will screen the search results at title and abstract and then full text using Covidence with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Data collection will also be performed in duplicate using Microsoft Excel with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer and consensus discussion.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal as well as presented at local and national conferences and meetings relevant to our field. Furthermore, to make our findings accessible to non-scientific audiences, we will use various mediums, such as graphical abstracts, policy briefs and fact sheets to share the results in both English and Spanish on different platforms.

Advancing healthcare equity through dissemination and implementation science

OBJECTIVE

To provide guiding principles and recommendations for how approaches from the field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science can advance healthcare equity.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

This article, part of a special issue sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is based on an outline drafted to support proceedings of the 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit and further revised to reflect input from Summit attendees.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a narrative review of the current and potential applications of D&I approaches for understanding and advancing healthcare equity, followed by discussion and feedback with Summit attendees.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified major themes in narrative and systematic reviews related to D&I science, healthcare equity, and their intersections. Based on our expertise, and supported by synthesis of published studies, we propose recommendations for how D&I science is relevant for advancing healthcare equity. We used iterative discussions internally and at the Summit to refine preliminary findings and recommendations.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We identified four guiding principles and three D&I science domains with strong promise for accelerating progress toward healthcare equity. We present eight recommendations and more than 60 opportunities for action by practitioners, healthcare leaders, policy makers, and researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Promising areas for D&I science to impact healthcare equity include the following: attention to equity in the development and delivery of evidence-based interventions; the science of adaptation; de-implementation of low-value care; monitoring equity markers; organizational policies for healthcare equity; improving the economic evaluation of implementation; policy and dissemination research; and capacity building.

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.

An audit of the dissemination strategies and plan included in international food-based dietary guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) are an important resource to improve population health; however, little is known about the types of strategies to disseminate them. This study sought to describe dissemination strategies and content of dissemination plans that were available for FBDG.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional audit of FBDG with a published English-language version sourced from the United Nations FAO repository. We searched for publicly available dissemination strategies and any corresponding plans available in English language. Two authors extracted data on strategies, which were grouped according to the Model for Dissemination Research Framework (including source, audience, channel and message). For guidelines with a dissemination plan, we described goals, audience, strategies and expertise and resources according to the Canadian Institute for Health Research guidance.

SETTING

FBDG from fifty-three countries mostly from high-income (n 28, 52·8 %), and upper-middle income (n 18, 34 %) areas were included.

PARTICIPANTS

n/a.

RESULTS

The source of guidelines was most frequently health departments (79·2 %). The message included quantities and types of foods, physical activity recommendations and 88·7 % included summarised versions of main messages. The most common channels were infographics and information booklets, and the main end-users were the public. For twelve countries (22·6 %), we were able to source an English-language dissemination plan, where none met all recommendations outlined by the Canadian Institute for Health Research.

CONCLUSIONS

The public was the most frequently identified end-user and thus most dissemination strategies and plans focused on this group. Few FBDG had formal dissemination plans and of those there was limited detailed provided.

Translating and disseminating a localised economic model to support implementation of the 'Ending the HIV Epidemic' initiative to public health policymakers

Background

Despite significant progress in HIV treatment and prevention, the US remains far from its goal of 'Ending the HIV Epidemic' by 2030. Economic models using local data can synthesise the evidence to help policymakers allocate HIV resources efficiently, but persistent research-to-practice gaps remain. Little is known about how to facilitate the use of economic modelling data among local public health policymakers in real-world settings.

Aims and objectives

To explore the dissemination of results from a locally-calibrated economic model for HIV prevention and treatment and identify the factors influencing potential uptake of the model for public health decision making at the local level.

Methods

Four virtual focus groups with 26 local health department policymakers in Baltimore, Miami, Seattle, and New York City were held between July 2020 and May 2021. Qualitative content analysis of transcripts identified key themes around using the localised economic model in policy decisions.

Results

Participants were interested in using local data in their decisions to allocate resources for HIV prevention/treatment. Six themes emerged: 1) importance of understanding local policy context; 2) health equity considerations; 3) using evidence to support current priorities; 4) difficulty of changing strategies, even incrementally; 5) bang for the incremental buck (efficiency) vs. previous impact; and 6) community values.

Conclusion and relevance

To optimise acceptance and use of results from economic models, researchers should engage with local community members and public health decision makers early to understand budgetary and community priorities. Participants prioritised evidence that supports their existing strategies, considers budgets and funding streams, and improves health equity; however, real-world budget constraints and conflicting interests serve as barriers to implementing model recommendations and reaching national goals.

Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science

BACKGROUND

Policy is receiving increasing attention in the field of implementation science. However, there remains a lack of clear, concise guidance about how policy can be conceptualized in implementation science research. Building on Curran's article "Implementation science made too simple"-which defines "the thing" as the intervention, practice, or innovation in need of implementation support-we offer a typology of four very basic ways to conceptualize policy in implementation science research. We provide examples of studies that have conceptualized policy in these different ways and connect aspects of the typology to established frameworks in the field. The typology simplifies and refines related typologies in the field. Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science research. 1) Policy as something to adopt: an evidence-supported policy proposal is conceptualized as "the thing" and the goal of research is to understand how policymaking processes can be modified to increase adoption, and thus reach, of the evidence-supported policy. Policy-focused dissemination research is well-suited to achieve this goal. 2) Policy as something to implement: a policy, evidence-supported or not, is conceptualized as "the thing" and the goal of research is to generate knowledge about how policy rollout (or policy de-implementation) can be optimized to maximize benefits for population health and health equity. Policy-focused implementation research is well-suited to achieve this goal. 3) Policy as context to understand: an evidence-supported intervention is "the thing" and policies are conceptualized as a fixed determinant of implementation outcomes. The goal of research is to understand the mechanisms through which policies affect implementation of the evidence-supported intervention. 4) Policy as strategy to use: an evidence-supported intervention is "the thing" and policy is conceptualized as a strategy to affect implementation outcomes. The goal of research is to understand, and ideally test, how policy strategies affect implementation outcomes related to the evidence-supported intervention.

CONCLUSION

Policy can be conceptualized in multiple, non-mutually exclusive ways in implementation science. Clear conceptualizations of these distinctions are important to advancing the field of policy-focused implementation science and promoting the integration of policy into the field more broadly.

Factors influencing the utilization of doctoral research findings at a university in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Views of academic leaders

BACKGROUND

Translation of health research findings into policy remains a challenge in sub-Saharan Africa. Factors influencing health research utilization are poorly described in literature. Therefore, identifying factors that influence the utilization of research findings for policy formulation is essential to facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of academic leaders as to why doctoral research is not adequately used in policymaking.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were held with purposively selected key informants from the College of Health Sciences. An open-ended interview guide aimed at exploring college leadership views on factors influencing utilization of PhD generated knowledge into policy was used. Data was analysed thematically using NVivo 12 software. Thematic analysis was used to generate themes around the factors influencing utilization of doctoral research into policy.

RESULTS

Factors such as inaccessibility of research results, lack of funding, poor quality of research, lack of continuity in translating research into policy, lack of timeliness of research results and lack of collaboration between researchers and policymakers hindered the utilization of PhD generated knowledge. Participants recommended engagement with the Department of Health/policymakers, collaboration with Department of Health/policymakers, increasing enrolment of South African citizens into PhD program, making final research products available to Department of Health/policymakers, and provision of funding for dissemination of research results.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that final doctoral research results are mainly disseminated through journal articles and theses. Participants cited inaccessibility of research findings, lack of funding and poor-quality research as the most common factors hindering utilization of doctoral research findings. The study also recommended availing adequate funding for dissemination of research results, collaboration between researchers and policymakers, facilitation of policymaker-researcher engagement to find best ways of using research findings to influence policy and making final research products accessible to policymakers. Further research to gain the perspective of policymakers as to why doctoral research is not adequately used in policy formulation is recommended.

The C-CAP Process: A Comprehensive Approach to Community Resource Mapping

INTRODUCTION

Place-based systems change approaches are gaining popularity to address the complex problems associated with locational disadvantage. An important stage of place-based systems change involves understanding the context that surrounds (re)produces a target problem. Community resource mapping can be used to establish the context and identify the strengths of a community that might be leveraged through systems change efforts. Approaches to community resource mapping draw on a range of philosophical assumptions and methodological frameworks. However, comprehensive, practical guidance for researchers and practitioners to conduct community resource mapping is scarce.

METHOD

Drawing on the learnings from a literature review, scoping workshops, and reflective practice sessions, we developed a flexible, methodologically robust process called the Contextualize, Collect, Analyze, and Present (C-CAP) process: a four-phase approach to preparing for, conducting, and reporting on community resource mapping. The C-CAP process was co-developed by researchers and practitioners and was tested and refined in two different communities.

RESULTS

The C-CAP process provides robust guidance for conducting and reporting on a community resource mapping project. The C-CAP process can be applied by public health practitioners and researchers and adapted for use across different communities, problems, and target groups. We encourage others guided by differing theoretical perspectives to apply C-CAP and share the learnings.

CONCLUSION

Application of the C-CAP process has the potential to improve the comparability and comprehensiveness of findings from community resource mapping projects and avoids duplication of effort by reducing the need to design new processes for each new community resource mapping activity.

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.

Advancing health equity through implementation science: Identifying and examining measures of the outer setting

BACKGROUND

Implementation science (IS) could accelerate progress toward achieving health equity goals. However, the lack of attention to the outer setting where interventions are implemented limits applicability and generalizability of findings to different populations, settings, and time periods. We developed a data resource to assess outer setting across seven centers funded by the National Cancer Institute's IS Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network Program.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of the Outer Setting Data Resource and characterize the county-level outer context across Centers.

METHODS

Our Data Resource captures seven key environments, including: (1) food; (2) physical; (3) economic; (4) social; (5) health care; (6) cancer behavioral and screening; and (7) cancer-related policy. Data were obtained from public sources including the US Census and American Community Survey. We present medians and interquartile ranges based on the distribution of all counties in the US, all ISC3 centers, and within each Center for twelve selected measures. Distributions of each factor are compared with the national estimate using single sample sign tests.

RESULTS

ISC3 centers' catchment areas include 458 counties and over 126 million people across 28 states. The median percentage of population living within ½ mile of a park is higher in ISC3 counties (38.0%, interquartile range (IQR): 16.0%-59.0%) compared to nationally (18.0%, IQR: 7.0%-38.0%; p < 0.0001). The median percentage of households with no broadband access is significantly lower in ISC3 counties (28.4%, IQR: 21.4%-35.6%) compared the nation overall (32.8%, IQR: 25.8%-41.2%; p < 0.0001). The median unemployment rate was significantly higher in ISC3 counties (5.2%, IQR: 4.1%-6.4%) compared to nationally (4.9%, 3.6%-6.3%, p = 0.0006).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the outer setting varies across Centers and often differs from the national level. These findings demonstrate the importance of assessing the contextual environment in which interventions are implemented and suggest potential implications for intervention generalizability and scalability.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population.

RESULTS

Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

Dissemination of knowledge from Cochrane Public Health reviews: a bibliographic study

BACKGROUND

Appropriate dissemination of public health evidence is of high importance to ensure that scientific knowledge reaches potential stakeholders and relevant population groups. A wide distrust towards science and its findings indicates that communication thereof remains below its potential. Cochrane Public Health provides an important source of high-quality scientific evidence in the field of public health via reviews with systematic methodology. The aims of this study were to identify (1) dissemination strategies and (2) stakeholders of Cochrane Public Health reviews.

METHODS

This is a bibliographic study with a cross-sectional design. All 68 records (reviews or review protocols) listed on the Cochrane Public Health website ( https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics ) up to 8 March 2022 were included. Record characteristics, dissemination strategies, and potential stakeholder details were coded by one author, and 10% of records were checked by another author. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics or narratively into common themes.

RESULTS

The 68 records were published between 2010 and 2022 and included 15 review protocols and 53 reviews with systematic methodology (46 systematic, 6 rapid, and 1 scoping review). All 53 reviews were disseminated via open-access plain language summaries (PLS) in English with translations into 3-13 other languages. Other dissemination strategies included information on Cochrane websites (e.g., clinical answers or guidelines) available for 41/53 reviews and Cochrane news or blogs that mentioned 19/53 reviews. Overall, 23/68 records mentioned the actual stakeholder involvement in review production, protocol development, or formulation of dissemination plans. The potential stakeholders included several highly diverse groups, such as the general population or specific communities (e.g., racial minority groups), policy and decision makers, and researchers and professionals in various fields (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, education, or care).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that Cochrane Public Health reviews are disseminated predominantly via PLS in different languages and via review information on Cochrane websites. Planned dissemination strategies were rarely reported although actual stakeholders were involved in the planning and production of some reviews. The relevance of Cochrane Public Health reviews for non-academic stakeholders and the general population highlights the need for the dissemination of evidence from such reviews beyond academia.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ga9pt/ ).

Testing Multiple Methods to Effectively Promote Use of a Knowledge Portal to Health Policy Makers: Quasi-Experimental Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health policy makers and advocates increasingly utilize online resources for policy-relevant knowledge. Knowledge brokering is one potential mechanism to encourage the use of research evidence in policy making, but the mechanisms of knowledge brokerage in online spaces are understudied. This work looks at knowledge brokerage through the launch of Project ASPEN, an online knowledge portal developed in response to a New Jersey legislative act that established a pilot program for adolescent depression screening for young adults in grades 7-12.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the ability to drive policy brief downloads by policy makers and advocates from the Project ASPEN knowledge portal using a variety of online methods to promote the knowledge portal.

METHODS

The knowledge portal was launched on February 1, 2022, and a Google Ad campaign was run between February 27, 2022, and March 26, 2022. Subsequently, a targeted social media campaign, an email campaign, and tailored research presentations were used to promote the website. Promotional activities ended on May 31, 2022. Website analytics were used to track a variety of actions including new users coming to the website, page views, and policy brief downloads. Statistical analysis was used to assess the efficacy of different approaches.

RESULTS

The campaign generated 2837 unique user visits to the knowledge portal and 4713 page views. In addition, the campaign generated 6.5 policy web page views/day and 0.7 policy brief downloads/day compared with 1.8 views/day and 0.5 downloads/day in the month following the campaign. The rate of policy brief page view conversions was significantly higher for Google Ads compared with other channels such as email (16.0 vs 5.4; P<.001) and tailored research presentations (16.0 vs 0.8; P<.001). The download conversion rate for Google Ads was significantly higher compared with social media (1.2 vs 0.1; P<.001) and knowledge brokering activities (1.2 vs 0.2; P<.001). By contrast, the download conversion rate for the email campaign was significantly higher than that for social media (1.0 vs 0.1; P<.001) and tailored research presentations (1.0 vs 0.2; P<.001). While Google Ads for this campaign cost an average of US $2.09 per click, the cost per conversion was US $11 per conversion to drive targeted policy web page views and US $147 per conversion to drive policy brief downloads. While other approaches drove less traffic, those approaches were more targeted and cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Four tactics were tested to drive user engagement with policy briefs on the Project ASPEN knowledge portal. Google Ads was shown to be effective in driving a high volume of policy web page views but was ineffective in terms of relative costs. More targeted approaches such as email campaigns and tailored research presentations given to policy makers and advocates to promote the use of research evidence on the knowledge portal website are likely to be more effective when balancing goals and cost-effectiveness.

SciComm Optimizer for Policy Engagement: a randomized controlled trial of the SCOPE model on state legislators' research use in public discourse

BACKGROUND

While prior work has revealed conditions that foster policymakers' use of research evidence, few studies have rigorously investigated the effectiveness of theory-based practices. Specifically, policymakers are most apt to use research evidence when it is timely, relevant, brief, and messaged appropriately, as well as when it facilitates interactive engagement. This study sought to experimentally evaluate an enhanced research dissemination intervention, known as the SciComm Optimizer for Policy Engagement (SCOPE), implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic among US state legislators.

METHODS

State legislators assigned to health committees and their staff were randomized to receive the SCOPE intervention. This involved providing academic researchers with a pathway for translating and disseminating research relevant to current legislative priorities via fact sheets emailed directly to officials. The intervention occurred April 2020-March 2021. Research language was measured in state legislators' social media posts.

RESULTS

Legislators randomized to receive the intervention, relative to the control group, produced 24% more social media posts containing research language related to COVID-19. Secondary analyses revealed that these findings were driven by two different types of research language. Intervention officials produced 67% more COVID-related social media posts referencing technical language (e.g., statistical methods), as well as 28% more posts that referenced research-based concepts. However, they produced 31% fewer posts that referenced creating or disseminating new knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that strategic, targeted science communication efforts may have the potential to change state legislators' public discourse and use of evidence. Strategic science communication efforts are particularly needed in light of the role government officials have played in communicating about the pandemic to the general public.

Dissemination of public health research to prevent non-communicable diseases: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Dissemination is a critical element of the knowledge translation pathway, and a necessary step to ensure research evidence is adopted and implemented by key end users in order to improve health outcomes. However, evidence-based guidance to inform dissemination activities in research is limited. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe the scientific literature examining strategies to disseminate public health evidence related to the prevention of non-communicable diseases.

METHODS

Medline, PsycInfo and EBSCO Search Ultimate were searched in May 2021 for studies published between January 2000 and the search date that reported on the dissemination of evidence to end users of public health evidence, within the context of the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Studies were synthesised according to the four components of Brownson and colleagues' Model for Dissemination of Research (source, message, channel and audience), as well as by study design.

RESULTS

Of the 107 included studies, only 14% (n = 15) directly tested dissemination strategies using experimental designs. The remainder primarily reported on dissemination preferences of different populations, or outcomes such as awareness, knowledge and intentions to adopt following evidence dissemination. Evidence related to diet, physical activity and/or obesity prevention was the most disseminated topic. Researchers were the source of disseminated evidence in over half the studies, and study findings/knowledge summaries were more frequently disseminated as the message compared to guidelines or an evidence-based program/intervention. A broad range of dissemination channels were utilised, although peer-reviewed publications/conferences and presentations/workshops predominated. Practitioners were the most commonly reported target audience.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant gap in the peer reviewed literature, with few experimental studies published that analyse and evaluate the effect of different sources, messages and target audiences on the determinants of uptake of public health evidence for prevention. Such studies are important as they can help inform and improve the effectiveness of current and future dissemination practices in public health contexts.

A policy implementation study of earmarked taxes for mental health services: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Insufficient funding is frequently identified as a critical barrier to the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Thus, increasing access to funding is recognized as an implementation strategy. Policies that create earmarked taxes-defined as taxes for which revenue can only be spent on specific activities-are an increasingly common mental health financing strategy that could improve the reach of EBPs. This project's specific aims are to (1) identify all jurisdictions in the USA that have implemented earmarked taxes for mental health and catalogue information about tax design; (2) characterize experiences implementing earmarked taxes among local (e.g., county, city) mental health agency leaders and other government and community organization officials and assess their perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of different types of policy implementation strategies; and (3) develop a framework to guide effect earmarked tax designs, inform the selection of implementation strategies, and disseminate the framework to policy audiences.

METHODS

The project uses the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to inform data collection about the determinants and processes of tax implementation and Leeman's typology of implementation strategies to examine the acceptability and feasibility strategies which could support earmarked tax policy implementation. A legal mapping will be conducted to achieve aim 1. To achieve aim 2, a survey will be conducted of 300 local mental health agency leaders and other government and community organization officials involved with the implementation of earmarked taxes for mental health. The survey will be followed by approximately 50 interviews with these officials. To achieve aim 3, quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated through a systematic framework development and dissemination process.

DISCUSSION

This exploratory policy implementation process study will build the evidence base for outer-context implementation determinants and strategies by focusing on policies that earmarked taxes for mental health services.

Unintended consequences of disseminating behavioral health evidence to policymakers: Results from a survey-based experiment

Background

Communication research demonstrates that messages often have unintended consequences, but this work has received limited attention in implementation science. This dissemination experiment sought to determine whether state-tailored policy briefs about the behavioral health consequences of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), compared to national policy briefs on the topic, increased state legislators'/staffers' perceptions of the policy brief relevance and parental blame for the consequences of ACEs, and whether effects differed between Democrats and Republicans.

Method

A preregistered, web-based survey experiment with U.S. state legislators/staffers was conducted in 2021 (n  =  133). Respondents were randomized to view a policy brief about the behavioral health consequences of ACEs that included state-tailored data (intervention condition) or national data (control condition) and then answered survey questions. Dependent variables were perceived policy brief relevance and parental blame for the consequences of ACEs.

Results

The mean policy brief relevance score was 4.1% higher in the intervention than in the control condition (p  =  .24), but the mean parental blame score was 16.5% higher (p  =  .02). When outcomes were dichotomized, 61.2% of respondents in the intervention condition rated parents as "very much to blame" for the consequences of ACEs compared to 37.1% in the control condition (p  =  .01). When the sample was stratified by political affiliation, the effect of the state-tailored policy brief on parental blame was larger in magnitude among Democrats and not significant among Republicans. The intervention policy brief increased the mean parental blame score by 22.8% among Democrats relative to the control policy brief (p  =  .007) and doubled the proportion rating parents as "very much to blame" (52.2% vs. 26.1%, p  =  .03).

Conclusions

Despite limited statistical power, state-tailored policy briefs significantly increased state legislators'/staffers' perceptions of parental blame for the behavioral health consequences of ACEs, relative to a policy brief with national data. Unintended messaging effects warrant greater attention in dissemination research and practice.

Municipal officials' perspectives on policymaking for addressing obesity and health equity

Background

Obesity evidence-based policies (EBPs) can make a lasting, positive impact on community health; however, policy development and enactment is complex and dependent on multiple forces.

Aims and objectives

This study investigated key factors affecting municipal officials' policymaking for obesity and related health disparities.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 local officials from a selection of municipalities with high obesity or related health disparities across the United States between December 2020 and April 2021.

Findings

Policymakers follow a general decision-making process with limited distinction between health and other policy areas. Factors affecting policymaking included: being informed about other local, state, and federal policy, conducting their own research using trustworthy sources, and seeking constituent and stakeholder perspectives. Key facilitators included the need for timely, relevant local data, and seeing or hearing from those impacted. Key local policymaking barriers included constituent opposition, misinformation, controversial issues with contentious solutions, and limited understanding of the connection between issues and obesity/health. Policymakers had a range of understanding about causes of health disparities, including views of individual choices, environmental influences on behaviors, and structural factors impacting health. To address health disparities, municipal officials described: a variety of roles policymakers can take, limitations based on the scope of government, challenges with intergovernmental collaboration or across government levels, ability of policymakers and government employees to understand the problem, and the challenge of framing health disparities given the social-political context.

Discussion and conclusion

Understanding factors affecting the uptake of EBPs can inform local-level interventions that encourage EBP adoption.

Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study

Background

Getting knowledge from healthcare research into practice (knowledge mobilisation) remains a global challenge. One way in which researchers may attempt to do this is to develop products (such as toolkits, actionable tools, dashboards, guidance, audit tools, protocols and clinical decision aids) in addition to journal papers. Despite their increasing ubiquity, the development of such products remains under-explored in the academic literature. This study aimed to further this understanding by exploring the development of products from healthcare research and how the process of their development might influence their potential application.

Methods

This study compared the data generated from a prospective, longitudinal, comparative case study of four research projects which aimed to develop products from healthcare research. Qualitative methods included thematic analysis of data generated from semi-structured interviews (38), meeting observations (83 h) and project documents (300+). Cases were studied for an average of 11.5 months (range 8–19 months).

Results

Case comparison resulted in the identification of three main themes with the potential to affect the use of products in practice. First, aspects of the product, including the perceived need for the specific product being identified, the clarity of product aim and clarity and range of end-users. Second, aspects of development, whereby different types of stakeholder engagement appear to influence potential product application, which either needs to be ‘meaningful’, or delivered through the implicit understanding of users’ needs by the developing team. The third, overarching theme, relates to the academic context in which products are developed, highlighting how the academic context perpetuates the development of products, which may not always be useful in practice.

Conclusions

This study showed that aspects of products from healthcare research (need/aim/end-user) and aspects of their development (stakeholder engagement/implicit understanding of end-users) influence their potential application. It explored the motivation for product development and identifies the influence of the current academic context on product development. It shows that there is a tension between ideal ‘systems approaches’ to knowledge mobilisation and ‘linear approaches’, which appear to be more pervasive in practice currently. The development of fewer, high-quality products which fulfil the needs of specified end-users might act to counter the current cynicism felt by many stakeholders in regard to products from healthcare research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00360-9.

Developing criteria for research translation decision-making in community settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis informed by the Knowledge to Action Framework and community input

Background

There is a pressing need to translate empirically supported interventions, products, and policies into practice to prevent and control prevalent chronic diseases. According to the Knowledge to Action (K2A) Framework, only those interventions deemed “ready” for translation are likely to be disseminated, adopted, implemented, and ultimately institutionalized. Yet, this pivotal step has not received adequate study. The purpose of this paper was to create a list of criteria that can be used by researchers, in collaboration with community partners, to help evaluate intervention readiness for translation into community and/or organizational settings.

Methods

The identification and selection of criteria involved reviewing the K2A Framework questions from the “decision to translate” stage, conducting a systematic review to identify characteristics important for research translation in community settings, using thematic analysis to select unique research translation decision criteria, and incorporating researcher and community advisory board feedback.

Results

The review identified 46 published articles that described potential criteria to decide if an intervention appears ready for translation into community settings. In total, 17 unique research translation decision criteria were identified. Of the 8 themes from the K2A Framework that were used to inform the thematic analysis, all 8 were included in the final criteria list after research supported their importance for research translation decision-making. Overall, the criteria identified through our review highlighted the importance of an intervention’s public health, cultural, and community relevance. Not only are intervention characteristics (e.g., evidence base, comparative effectiveness, acceptability, adaptability, sustainability, cost) necessary to consider when contemplating introducing an intervention to the “real world,” it is also important to consider characteristics of the target setting and/or population (e.g., presence of supporting structure, support or buy-in, changing sociopolitical landscape).

Conclusions

Our research translation decision criteria provide a holistic list for identifying important barriers and facilitators for research translation that should be considered before introducing an empirically supported intervention into community settings. These criteria can be used for research translation decision-making on the individual and organizational level to ensure resources are not wasted on interventions that cannot be effectively translated in community settings to yield desired outcomes.

Disseminating implementation science: Describing the impact of animations shared via social media

Background

Dissemination is an under-researched activity that is important to researchers and funders and may have a role in creating conditions for implementation. We aim to study the impact of two animations shared via social media upon dissemination.

Methods

We developed two short animations to increase the awareness of healthcare positional leaders of work undertaken to enhance a much-used implementation intervention. We measured both how frequently the related articles were accessed, and engagement with the research team, before and after the intervention. We analysed variation over time using statistical process control to identify both trend and periods of significant change.

Results

We found evidence that the animation increased how frequently the articles were accessed, with a significant increase (p = <0.01) during the two weeks after release of each animation. One animation was associated with an increase in positional leaders’ engagement with the research team.

Conclusions

Animations shared via social media can enhance dissemination. We describe lessons from the work to develop the intervention and support calls for work to increase the understanding and adoption of effective dissemination interventions. Our findings provide support for further work using randomised study designs.

Partisan differences in the effects of economic evidence and local data on legislator engagement with dissemination materials about behavioral health: a dissemination trial

BACKGROUND

State legislators make policy decisions that influence children's exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as child maltreatment, and their effects on behavioral health. Effective dissemination of scientific research can increase the likelihood that legislators' decisions are aligned with evidence to prevent ACEs and their consequences, and effective dissemination requires legislators to engage with dissemination materials. Informed by the elaboration likelihood model of persuasive communication and Brownson's Model of Dissemination Research, we tested the hypothesis that inclusion of economic evidence and local data would increase legislator engagement with dissemination materials about evidence-supported policies related to ACEs and behavioral health.

METHODS

A three-arm randomized dissemination trial was conducted. A university researcher e-mailed dissemination materials which contained evidence about ACEs and behavioral health problems to state legislators (two e-mails sent 2 weeks apart, 12,662 e-mails delivered to 6509 legislators). The e-mail subject lines, text, and policy brief content were manipulated across the study arms. The intervention condition received state-tailored data about rates of ACEs and state-tailored economic evidence about the costs of ACEs for public systems, the enhanced control condition received state-tailored data and not economic evidence, and the control condition received national data and not economic evidence. Outcomes were rates of e-mail views, policy brief link clicks, requests for researcher consultation, and mentions of child maltreatment terms in legislators' social media posts.

RESULTS

For the first e-mail, the e-mail view rate was 42.6% higher in the intervention than in the enhanced control condition (22.8% vs. 14.8%) and 20.8% higher than in the control condition (22.8% vs. 18.5%) (both p < .0001). Similar results were observed for the second e-mail. These differences remained significant after adjustment for demographic differences across study conditions in individual-level models, but not multilevel models. There was a significant interaction between the experimental condition and political party (p < .0001) in which the intervention increased e-mail view rates among Democrats but not Republicans. The intervention had no effect on policy brief link clicks or requests for consultation and a mixed effect on social media posts.

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of state-tailored economic evidence in dissemination materials can increase engagement with research evidence among Democrat, but not Republican, legislators. Dissemination strategies tailored for legislators' political party affiliation may be needed.

Let's Talk About It: A Narrative Review of Digital Approaches for Disseminating and Communicating Health Research and Innovation

Best health practice and policy are derived from research, yet the adoption of research findings into health practice and policy continues to lag. Efforts to close this knowledge-to-action gap can be addressed through knowledge translation, which is composed of knowledge synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and application. Although all components warrant investigation, improvements in knowledge dissemination are particularly needed. Specifically, as society continues to evolve and technology becomes increasingly present in everyday life, knowing how to share research findings (with the appropriate audience, using tailored messaging, and through the right digital medium) is an important component towards improved health knowledge translation. As such, this article presents a review of digital presentation formats and communication channels that can be leveraged by health researchers, as well as practitioners and policy makers, for knowledge dissemination of health research. In addition, this article highlights a series of additional factors worth consideration, as well as areas for future direction.

Designing and Implementing a Curriculum to Support Health Equity Research Leaders: The Interdisciplinary Research Leaders Experience

Health inequities in the United States are well-documented. However, research that is focused on solutions, rather than just describing the problem, and research that is designed explicitly to inform needed policy and practice change, is still too rare. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Interdisciplinary Research Leaders (IRL) program launched in 2016 with the goal of filling this gap: to generate community-engaged research to catalyze policy action in communities, while promoting leadership among researchers and community partners. In this paper, we describe the creation and implementation of a curriculum for IRL program participants over the first 5 years of the program. The curriculum—spanning domains of leadership, policy, communication, community engagement, and research methodologies—was designed to cultivate leaders who use research evidence in their efforts to promote change to advance health equity in their communities. The curriculum components implemented by IRL might be applied to other educational programs or fellowships to amplify and accelerate the growth of leaders nationwide who can use research and action to respond to grave and ongoing threats to community health.

Tailoring dissemination of evidence to preferences of tobacco control partners: results from an academic-community partnership

BACKGROUND

Tobacco control program leaders and their partners, who often present evidence to policymakers, can increase the use of evidence in program and policy development. However, up-to-date evidence from the scientific community about what works is slow to reach leaders. We describe efforts to understand and utilize tobacco control leaders' preferences for receiving evidence and report on resulting dissemination strategies, translational products, and outcomes.

METHODS

This work is part of the Advancing Science and Practice in the Retail Environment (ASPiRE) Center, an interdisciplinary research center focused on understanding and evaluating tobacco retail policy. Participants were members of the ASPiRE Community Advisory Board (CAB), comprised of tobacco control leaders from 30 metropolitan areas representing all regions of the US plus nine representatives from leading national tobacco control organizations (N = 39). During meetings in February 2019 and October 2020, all CAB members were invited to participate in live polls consisting of six survey questions each. Questions addressed preferences for receiving scientific evidence and their anticipated use of ASPiRE translational products. Responses were analyzed descriptively and informed translational product development and communications with ASPiRE contact list members (N = 125). ASPiRE email and website interactions were tracked from March 2019 to May 2021 as a complementary indication of content use.

RESULTS

Response rates for 2019 and 2020 CAB meetings were 66% (n = 26) and 59% (n = 23), respectively. CAB members indicated preferences for email communication (33%) and webinars (31%), communications once per month (46%), and short-format documents (28%). In response, the team developed translational short-format products including case studies, fact sheets, and research briefs. On average, 52% (SD = 14%) of recipients opened the newsletter and 17% (SD = 9%) clicked a link within the newsletter. Overall, 95% of responding CAB members found the products useful and all responding CAB members reported using them to communicate evidence to policymakers, staff, and coalition members.

CONCLUSIONS

Our successful dissemination approach to making evidence more accessible and useable for tobacco control leaders could be adapted by researchers working with community partners to assess and respond to stakeholders' preferences for receiving evidence in other areas of health policy.

Building evidence into youth health policy: a case study of the Access 3 knowledge translation forum

BACKGROUND

Effective integration of evidence and youth perspectives into policy is crucial for supporting the future health and well-being of young people. The aim of this project was to translate evidence from the Access 3 project to support development of a new state policy on youth health and well-being within New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Ensuring the active contribution of young people within policy development was a key objective of the knowledge translation (KT) process.

METHODS

The KT activity consisted of a 1-day facilitated forum with 64 purposively sampled stakeholders. Participants included eight young people, 14 policy-makers, 15 academics, 22 clinicians or managers from NSW health services, four general practitioners and one mental health service worker. Research to be translated came from the synthesized findings of the NSW Access 3 project. The design of the forum included stakeholder presentations and group workshops, guided by the 2003 Lavis et al. KT framework that was improved by the Grimshaw et al. KT framework in 2012. Members of the Access 3 research team took on the role of knowledge brokers throughout the KT process. Participant satisfaction with the workshop was evaluated using a brief self-report survey. Policy uptake was determined through examination of the subsequent NSW Youth Health Framework 2017-2024.

RESULTS

A total of 25 policy recommendations were established through the workshop, and these were grouped into six themes that broadly aligned with the synthesized findings from the Access 3 project. The six policy themes were (1) technology solutions, (2) integrated care and investment to build capacity, (3) adolescent health checks, (4) workforce, (5) youth participation and (6) youth health indicators. Forum members were asked to vote on the importance of individual recommendations. These policy recommendations were subsequently presented to the NSW Ministry of Health, with some evidence of policy uptake identified. The majority of participants rated the forum positively.

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of KT theories and active youth engagement led to the successful translation of research evidence and youth perspectives into NSW youth health policy. Future research should examine the implementation of policy arising from these KT efforts.

Revisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science

Background

Evidence, in multiple forms, is a foundation of implementation science. For public health and clinical practice, evidence includes the following: type 1 evidence on etiology and burden; type 2 evidence on effectiveness of interventions; and type 3: evidence on dissemination and implementation (D&I) within context. To support a vision for development and use of evidence in D&I science that is more comprehensive and equitable (particularly for type 3 evidence), this article aims to clarify concepts of evidence, summarize ongoing debates about evidence, and provide a set of recommendations and tools/resources for addressing the “how-to” in filling evidence gaps most critical to advancing implementation science.

Main text

Because current conceptualizations of evidence have been relatively narrow and insufficiently characterized in our opinion, we identify and discuss challenges and debates about the uses, usefulness, and gaps in evidence for implementation science. A set of questions is proposed to assist in determining when evidence is sufficient for dissemination and implementation. Intersecting gaps include the need to (1) reconsider how the evidence base is determined, (2) improve understanding of contextual effects on implementation, (3) sharpen the focus on health equity in how we approach and build the evidence-base, (4) conduct more policy implementation research and evaluation, and (5) learn from audience and stakeholder perspectives. We offer 15 recommendations to assist in filling these gaps and describe a set of tools for enhancing the evidence most needed in implementation science.

Conclusions

To address our recommendations, we see capacity as a necessary ingredient to shift the field’s approach to evidence. Capacity includes the “push” for implementation science where researchers are trained to develop and evaluate evidence which should be useful and feasible for implementers and reflect community or stakeholder priorities. Equally important, there has been inadequate training and too little emphasis on the “pull” for implementation science (e.g., training implementers, practice-based research). We suggest that funders and reviewers of research should adopt and support a more robust definition of evidence. By critically examining the evolving nature of evidence, implementation science can better fulfill its vision of facilitating widespread and equitable adoption, delivery, and sustainment of scientific advances.

Designing for Dissemination and Sustainability to Promote Equitable Impacts on Health

Designing for dissemination and sustainability (D4DS) refers to principles and methods for enhancing the fit between a health program, policy, or practice and the context in which it is intended to be adopted. In this article we first summarize the historical context of D4DS and justify the need to shift traditional health research and dissemination practices. We present a diverse literature according to a D4DS organizing schema and describe a variety of dissemination products, design processes and outcomes, and approaches to messaging, packaging, and distribution. D4DS design processes include stakeholder engagement, participatory codesign, and context and situation analysis, and leverage methods and frameworks from dissemination and implementation science, marketing and business, communications and visualarts, and systems science. Finally, we present eight recommendations to adopt a D4DS paradigm, reflecting shifts in ways of thinking, skills and approaches, and infrastructure and systems for training and evaluation.

Bursting out of our bubble: using creative techniques to communicate within the systematic review process and beyond

BACKGROUND

Increasing pressure to publicise research findings and generate impact, alongside an expectation from funding bodies to go beyond publication within academic journals, has generated interest in alternative methods of science communication. Our aim is to describe our experience of using a variety of creative communication tools, reflect on their use in different situations, enhance learning and generate discussion within the systematic review community.

METHODS

Over the last 5 years, we have explored several creative communication tools within the systematic review process and beyond to extend dissemination beyond traditional academic mechanisms. Central to our approach is the co-production of a communication plan with potential evidence users which facilitates (i) the identification of key messages for different audiences, (ii) discussion of appropriate tools to communicate key messages and (iii) exploration of avenues to share them. We aim to involve evidence users in the production of a variety of outputs for each research project cognisant of the many ways in which individuals engage with information.

RESULTS

Our experience has allowed us to develop an understanding of the benefits and challenges of a wide range of creative communication tools. For example, board games can be a fun way of learning, may flatten power hierarchies between researchers and research users and enable sharing of large amounts of complex information in a thought provoking way, but they are time and resource intensive both to produce and to engage with. Conversely, social media shareable content can be quick and easy to produce and to engage with but limited in the depth and complexity of shareable information.

DISCUSSION

It is widely recognised that most stakeholders do not have time to invest in reading large, complex documents; creative communication tools can be a used to improve accessibility of key messages. Furthermore, our experience has highlighted a range of additional benefits of embedding these techniques within our project processes e.g. opening up two-way conversations with end-users of research to discuss the implications of findings.

Opportunities to improve policy dissemination by tailoring communication materials to the research priorities of legislators

BACKGROUND

Communicating research to policymakers is a complex and difficult process. Ensuring that communication materials have information or design aspects that appeal to groups of policymakers with different priorities could be a substantive improvement over current dissemination approaches. To facilitate a more nuanced design of policy communication materials and message framing, we identified and characterized groups of state legislators based on how they prioritize different characteristics of research.

METHODS

We used deidentified data collected in 2012 on 862 state legislators belonging to the US liberal-moderate-conservative ideological spectrum and from all 50 US states. Legislators were grouped using latent class analysis based on how they prioritized 12 different characteristics of research (e.g., research is unbiased, presents data on cost-effectiveness, policy options are feasible). We fit initial models using 1-6 group solutions and chose the final model based on identification, information criteria, and substantive interpretation.

RESULTS

Most legislators placed a high priority on research that was understandable (61%), unbiased (61%), available at the time that decisions are made (58%), and brief and concise (55%). The best model identified four groups of state legislators. Pragmatic consumers (36%) prioritized research that was brief and concise, provided cost-effectiveness analyses, and was understandably written. Uninterested skeptics (30%) generally did not place a high priority on any of the research characteristics. Conversely, one-quarter of legislators (25%) belonged to the Highly Informed Supporters group that placed a high priority on most characteristics of research. Finally, Constituent-Oriented Decision Makers (9%) prioritized research that was relevant to their constituents, delivered by someone they knew or trusted, available at the time decisions were made, and dealt with an issue that they felt was a priority for state legislative action.

CONCLUSIONS

To maximize the impact of dissemination efforts, researchers should consider how to communicate with legislators who have distinct preferences, values, and priorities. The groups identified in this study could be used to develop communication materials that appeal to a wide range of legislators with distinct needs and preferences, potentially improving the uptake of research into the policymaking process. Future work should investigate how to engage skeptical legislators.

“There’s no money in community dissemination”: A mixed methods analysis of researcher dissemination-as-usual

Background:

The field of dissemination and implementation science has the potential to narrow the translational research-to-practice gap and improve the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within community-based settings. Yet, foundational research related to dissemination efforts, such as understanding researcher attitudes, practices, and the determinants to sharing research findings, is lacking within extant literature.

Methods:

A sequential explanatory (QUAN $$ \to $$ qual) mixed methods design was used to examine 85 academic researchers’ perspectives and self-reported dissemination methods used to share research outcomes with community stakeholders to better understand researcher’s usual dissemination practices (referred to as dissemination-as-usual). Quantitative surveys collected researcher demographic data, attitudes toward dissemination efforts, and dissemination strategy use.

Results:

Multiple linear regression examined predictors of the quantity of dissemination strategies utilized by researchers, finding that years since earning their degree, time spent disseminating, and the number of reasons for engaging in dissemination efforts predicted greater numbers of dissemination strategies utilized by researchers. Individual, semi-structured interviews with a subset of researchers (n = 18) expanded upon quantitative findings, identifying barriers and facilitators to their dissemination efforts. Data strands were integrated using a joint display, and the Dissemination of Research model guided data interpretation. More established researchers experienced fewer barriers and more facilitators to support their use of a variety of dissemination strategies to share findings with community stakeholders. However, researchers reported needing specific training, institutional support, and/or dedicated time to plan and enact dissemination strategies.

Conclusion:

The necessary first step in research translation is the dissemination of research evidence, and understanding dissemination-as-usual can identify areas of need to advance translational science.

Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits

Background

Effective interventions for reducing the consumption of products that harm population and planetary health often lack public support, impeding implementation. Communicating evidence of policies’ effectiveness can increase public support but there is uncertainty about the most effective ways of communicating this evidence. Some policies have multiple benefits such as both improving health and the environment. This study assesses whether communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits of a policy increases its support.

Method

Participants (n = 4616) nationally representative of the British population were randomised to one of 24 groups in an online experiment with a 4 × 3 × 2 between-subjects factorial design. The messages that participants viewed differed according to the evidence they communicated (no message, effectiveness for changing behaviour, effectiveness for changing behaviour + one policy benefit, effectiveness for changing behaviour + three policy benefits), type of policy (taxation, availability) and the target behaviour (consumption of energy-dense food, alcohol, or meat). The primary outcome was policy support.

Results

In a full factorial ANOVA, there was a significant main effect of communicating evidence of effectiveness on policy support, which was similar across policies and behaviours. Communicating three benefits increased support relative to communicating one benefit (d = 0.15; p = 0.01). Communicating one benefit increased support compared to providing evidence for changing behaviour alone (d = 0.13; p = 0.004) or no message (d = 0.11 p = 0.022).

Conclusion

Communicating evidence of a policy's benefits increases support for policy action across different behaviours and policies. Presenting multiple benefits of policies enhances public support.

•

Providing evidence of policies effectiveness at achieving policy goals increases public support.

•

Uncertainty exists about the most effective ways of communicating this evidence.

•

Evidence about multiple policy benefits increases support more than evidence for a single benefit.

•

Effects are evident across behaviours and policies.

Market viability: a neglected concept in implementation science

This debate paper asserts that implementation science needs to incorporate a key concept from entrepreneurship—market demand—and demonstrates how assessing an innovation’s potential market viability might advance the pace and success of innovation adoption and sustainment. We describe key concepts, language distinctions, and questions that entrepreneurs pose to implementation scientists—many of which implementation scientists appear ill-equipped to answer. The paper concludes with recommendations about how concepts from entrepreneurship, notably market viability assessment, can enhance the translation of research discoveries into real-world adoption, sustained use, and population health benefits. The paper further proposes activities that can advance implementation science’s capacity to draw from the field of entrepreneurship, along with the data foundations required to assess and cultivate market demand.

Understanding Public Opinion Is Critical for Making Public Policy Democratically

Paul Gugiu argues that Kaplan and Baron-Epel's central idea or underlying premise is not merely wrong, but "dangerous with potentially dire consequences," particularly in our current circumstances of a pandemic and a polarized political atmosphere. We disagree in the strongest terms and believe that nothing in Kaplan and Baron-Epel's article can be fairly thought to support such a claim. We begin by addressing Gugiu's framing of Kaplan and Baron-Epel's position, before examining his criticisms of that position in turn.

Turning value into action: Healthcare workers using digital media advocacy to drive change

Background

The standard method of sharing information in academia is the scientific journal. Yet health advocacy requires alternative methods to reach key stakeholders to drive change. The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of social media and public narrative for advocacy in matters of firearm-related injury and death.

Study design

The movement This Is Our Lane was evaluated through the #ThisIsOurLane and #ThisIsMyLane hashtags. Sources were assessed from November 2018 through March 2019. Analyses specifically examined message volume, time course, global engagement, and content across Twitter, scientific literature, and mass media. Twitter data were analyzed via Symplur Signals. Scientific literature reviews were performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Mass media was compiled using Access World News/Newsbank, Newspaper Source, and Google.

Results

A total of 507,813 tweets were shared using #ThisIsOurLane, #ThisIsMyLane, or both (co-occurrence 21–39%). Fifteen scientific items and n = 358 mass media publications were published during the study period; the latter included articles, blogs, television interviews, petitions, press releases, and audio interviews/podcasts. Peak messaging appeared first on Twitter on November 10^th, followed by mass media on November 12^th and 20^th, and scientific publications during December.

Conclusions

Social media enables clinicians to quickly disseminate information about a complex public health issue like firearms to the mainstream media, scientific community, and general public alike. Humanized data resonates with people and has the ability to transcend the barriers of language, culture, and geography. Showing society the reality of caring for firearm-related injuries through healthcare worker stories via digital media appears to be effective in shaping the public agenda and influencing real-world events.

Dissemination Science in School Mental Health: A Framework for Future Research

There has been an increase in school mental health research aimed at producing generalizable knowledge to address longstanding science-to-practice gaps to increase children's access to evidence-based mental health services. Successful dissemination and implementation are both important pieces to address science-to-practice gaps, but there is conceptual and semantic imprecision that creates confusion regarding where dissemination ends and implementation begins, as well as an imbalanced focus in research on implementation relative to dissemination. In this paper, we provide an enhanced operational definition of dissemination; offer a conceptual model that outlines elements of effective dissemination that can produce changes in awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and motivation across different stakeholder groups; and delineate guiding principles that can inform dissemination science and practice. The overarching goal of this paper is to stimulate future research that aims to advance dissemination science and practice in school mental health.

Determinants of using children's mental health research in policymaking: variation by type of research use and phase of policy process

Background

Research use in policymaking is multi-faceted and has been the focus of extensive study. However, virtually no quantitative studies have examined whether the determinants of research use vary according to the type of research use or phase of policy process. Understanding such variation is important for selecting the targets of implementation strategies that aim to increase the frequency of research use in policymaking.

Methods

A web-based survey of US state agency officials involved with children’s mental health policymaking was conducted between December 2019 and February 2020 (n = 224, response rate = 33.7%, 49 states responding (98%), median respondents per state = 4). The dependent variables were composite scores of the frequency of using children’s mental health research in general, specific types of research use (i.e., conceptual, instrumental, tactical, imposed), and during different phases of the policy process (i.e., agenda setting, policy development, policy implementation). The independent variables were four composite scores of determinants of research use: agency leadership for research use, agency barriers to research use, research use skills, and dissemination barriers (e.g., lack of actionable messages/recommendations in research summaries, lack of interaction/collaboration with researchers). Separate multiple linear regression models estimated associations between determinant and frequency of research use scores.

Results

Determinants of research use varied significantly by type of research use and phase of policy process. For example, agency leadership for research use was the only determinant significantly associated with imposed research use (β = 0.31, p < 0.001). Skills for research use were the only determinant associated with tactical research use (β = 0.17, p = 0.03) and were only associated with research use in the agenda-setting phase (β = 0.16, p = 0.04). Dissemination barriers were the most universal determinants of research use, as they were significantly and inversely associated with frequency of conceptual (β = −0.21, p = 0.01) and instrumental (β = −0.22, p = 0.01) research use and during all three phases of policy process.

Conclusions

Decisions about the determinants to target with policy-focused implementation strategies—and the strategies that are selected to affect these targets—should reflect the specific types of research use that these strategies aim to influence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01081-8.