Unrecognized implementation science engagement among health researchers in the USA: a national survey

Evaluating strategies to recruit health researchers to participate in online survey research

BACKGROUND

Engaging researchers as research subjects is key to informing the development of effective and relevant research practices. It is important to understand how best to engage researchers as research subjects.

METHODS

A 24 factorial experiment, as part of a Multiphase Optimization Strategy, was performed to evaluate effects of four recruitment strategy components on participant opening of an emailed survey link and survey completion. Participants were members of three US-based national health research consortia. A stratified simple random sample was used to assign potential survey participants to one of 16 recruitment scenarios. Recruitment strategy components were intended to address both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation, including: $50 gift, $1,000 raffle, altruistic messaging, and egoistic messaging. Multivariable generalized linear regression analyses adjusting for consortium estimated component effects on outcomes. Potential interactions among components were tested. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Surveys were collected from June to December 2023. A total of 418 participants were included from the consortia, with final analytical sample of 400 eligible participants. Out of the final sample, 82% (341) opened the survey link and 35% (147) completed the survey. Altruistic messaging increased the odds of opening the survey (aOR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.35-2.69, p = 0.033), while egoistic messaging significantly reduced the odds of opening the survey (aOR 0.56, 95%CI 0.38-0.75, p = 0.08). The receipt of egoistic messaging increased the odds of completing the survey once opened (aOR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.39-2.23, p < 0.05). There was a significant negative interaction effect between the altruistic appeal and egoistic messaging strategies for survey completion outcome. Monetary incentives did not a have a significant impact on survey completion.

CONCLUSION

Intrinsic motivation is likely to be a greater driver of health researcher participation in survey research than extrinsic motivation. Altruistic and egoistic messaging may differentially impact initial interest and survey completion and when combined may lead to improved rates of recruitment, but not survey completion. Further research is needed to determine how to best optimize message content and whether the effects observed are modified by survey burden.

[Gaps in primary mental health care in Chocó, Colombia: barriers and challengesLacunas na atenção primária à saúde mental em Chocó, Colômbia: barreiras e desafios]

Objective

Describe barriers and challenges in the implementation of the global Mental Health Gap Action Program (mhGAP), and determine the association between facilitators of implementation, accessibility, acceptability, and supervision, in Chocó, Colombia.

Methods

Cross-sectional evaluation study, with mixed and sequential methods. Forty-one people participated: 30 health personnel and 11 administrative workers. Five focus groups were formed within the framework of the mhGAP training. The Likert scale of implementation drivers was used to determine factors affecting the strategy, such as system facilitators, accessibility of the strategy, adaptation and acceptability, and training and supervision. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted, with a subsequent thematic analysis.

Results

A statistically significant correlation was found between the components of implementation. This was reaffirmed by the information from the interviews. Notable barriers include dispersion, armed conflict, difficulty in changing one's perspective on the area where they live, and administrative problems in accessing treatment. These factors are addressed in a proposed care pathway.

Conclusions

With respect to mhGAP in the department of Chocó, despite adequate acceptability, access, and supervision, there are barriers and challenges at the social, geographical, political, cultural, and health administration levels, which could be overcome through implementation of locally-built intersectoral recovery routes.

A systematic review of dissemination and implementation science capacity building programs around the globe

BACKGROUND

Research centers and programs focused on dissemination and implementation science (DIS) training, mentorship, and capacity building have proliferated in recent years. There has yet to be a comprehensive inventory of DIS capacity building program (CBP) cataloging information about activities, infrastructure, and priorities as well as opportunities for shared resources, collaboration, and growth. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide the first inventory of DIS CBPs and describe their key features and offerings.

METHODS

We defined DIS CBPs as organizations or groups with an explicit focus on building practical knowledge and skills to conduct DIS for health promotion. CBPs were included if they had at least one capacity building activity other than educational coursework or training alone. A multi-method strategy was used to identify DIS CBPs. Data about the characteristics of DIS CBPs were abstracted from each program's website. In addition, a survey instrument was developed and fielded to gather in-depth information about the structure, activities, and resources of each CBP.

RESULTS

In total, 165 DIS CBPs met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final CBP inventory. Of these, 68% are affiliated with a United States (US) institution and 32% are internationally based. There was one CBP identified in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). Of the US-affiliated CBPs, 55% are embedded within a Clinical and Translational Science Award program. Eighty-seven CBPs (53%) responded to a follow-up survey. Of those who completed a survey, the majority used multiple DIS capacity building activities with the most popular being Training and Education (n=69, 79%) followed by Mentorship (n=58, 67%), provision of DIS Resources and Tools (n=57, 66%), Consultation (n=58, 67%), Professional Networking (n=54, 62%), Technical Assistance (n=46, 52%), and Grant Development Support (n=45, 52%).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to catalog DIS programs and synthesize learnings into a set of priorities and sustainment strategies to support DIS capacity building efforts. There is a need for formal certification, accessible options for learners in LMICs, opportunities for practitioners, and opportunities for mid/later stage researchers. Similarly, harmonized measures of reporting and evaluation would facilitate targeted cross-program comparison and collaboration.

Using Implementation Mapping to develop protocols supporting the implementation of a state policy on screening children for Adverse Childhood Experiences in a system of health centers in inland Southern California

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are defined as traumatic events occurring before age 18, such as maltreatment, life-threatening accidents, harsh migration experiences, or violence. Screening for ACEs includes asking questions about an individual's early exposure to these types of events. ACEs screenings have potential value in identifying children exposed to chronic and significant stress that produces elevated cortisol levels (i.e., toxic stress), and its associated physical and mental health conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, depression, asthma, ADHD, anxiety, and substance dependence. However, ACEs screenings are seldom used in primary care settings. The Surgeon General of California has addressed this care gap by introducing ACEs Aware, an ACEs screening fee-for-service healthcare policy signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Since January 2020, Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid health care program, has reimbursed primary care providers for using the Pediatric ACEs and Related Life-events Screener (PEARLS) tool to screen children and adults for ACEs during wellness visits. To achieve the goals set by the ACEs Aware state policy, it is essential to develop and test implementation strategies that are informed by the values, priorities, and resources of clinical settings, healthcare professionals, and end-users. To address this need, we partnered with a system of federally qualified health centers in Southern California on a pilot study to facilitate the implementation of ACEs screenings in five community-based clinics. The health centers had broad ideas for an implementation strategy, as well as best practices to improve adoption of screenings, such as focusing on staff training to improve clinic workflow. This knowledge was incorporated into the development of an implementation strategy template, used at the outset of this study. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide the study and inform a participatory planning process called Implementation Mapping. In this paper, we describe how Implementation Mapping was used to engage diverse stakeholders and guide them through a systematic process that resulted in the development of the implementation strategy. We also detail how the EPIS framework informed each Implementation Mapping Task and provide recommendations for developing implementation strategies using EPIS and Implementation Mapping in health-care settings.

A network analysis of dissemination and implementation research expertise across a university: Central actors and expertise clusters

Background:

Although dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is a growing field, many health researchers with relevant D&I expertise do not self-identify as D&I researchers. The goal of this work was to analyze the distribution, clustering, and recognition of D&I expertise in an academic institution.

Methods:

A snowball survey was administered to investigators at University of Rochester with experience and/or interest in D&I research. The respondents were asked to identify their level of D&I expertise and to nominate others who were experienced and/or active in D&I research. We used social network analysis to examine nomination networks.

Results:

Sixty-eight participants provided information about their D&I expertise. Thirty-eight percent of the survey respondents self-identified as D&I researchers, 24% as conducting D&I under different labels, and 38% were familiar with D&I concepts. D&I researchers were, on average, the most central actors in the network (nominated most by other survey participants) and had the highest within-group density, indicating wide recognition by colleagues and among themselves. Researchers who applied D&I under different labels had the highest within-group reciprocity (25%), and the highest between-group reciprocity (29%) with researchers familiar with D&I. Participants significantly tended to nominate peers within their departments and within their expertise categories.

Conclusions:

Identifying and engaging unrecognized clusters of expertise related to D&I research may provide opportunities for mutual learning and dialog and will be critical to bridging across departmental and topic area silos and building capacity for D&I in academic settings.

Specifying and Reporting Implementation Strategies Used in a School-Based Prevention Efficacy Trial

Background

Implementation strategies used to enhance the implementation of interventions during efficacy and effectiveness studies are rarely reported. Tracking and reporting implementation strategies during these phases has potential to improve future research studies and real-world implementation. We present an exemplar of how this might be executed by specifying and reporting the implementation strategies that were used during a school-based efficacy trial, Project POWER, which tested a trauma-informed prevention program delivered by a university research team, community members, and school staff facilitators in 29 schools.

Methods

Following the conclusion of the 4-year trial, core Project POWER research team members identified the implementation strategies that supported intervention delivery during the trial using an established taxonomy of school-based implementation strategies. The actors, actions, action targets, temporality, dose, and implementation outcomes were specified using established implementation strategies reporting guidelines.

Results

The research team identified 37 implementation strategies that were used during the Project POWER trial. Most strategies fell within the categories of Train and Educate Stakeholders, Use Evaluative and Iterative Strategies, and Develop Stakeholder Interrelationships. Actors included members of the research team and partner schools. Strategies were used multiple times during the preparation and implementation phases. Action targets were most often characteristics of individuals, implementation process, and characteristics of the inner setting. Strategies predominantly targeted the implementation outcomes of fidelity, acceptability, feasibility, and adoption.

Conclusions

This study provided evidence that implementation strategies are used and can be identified in efficacy research using a retrospective approach. Identifying and specifying implementation strategies used during the initial phases of the translational research pipeline can inform the implementation strategies that are carried forward, adapted, or discontinued in future trials and routine practice to improve implementation and effectiveness outcomes.

Roles dissemination and implementation scientists can play in supporting research teams

The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is rapidly growing, with many scientists seeking to apply D&I science to enhance and expand the impact of their work. As the D&I field grows and collaborations of implementation scientists with other fields flourish, a description for the roles for D&I scientists as they collaborate with researchers from other fields could be beneficial. This paper exemplifies how the D&I scientist/researcher collaborative process might work and important elements to consider in doing so, as well as provide an outline on how collaborations might progress for different project needs. This is discussed through example scenarios to consider an implementation scientists' engagement in a research project and describe potential roles for implementation scientists in supporting research teams. We then discuss characteristics to consider when incorporating a D&I expert into a team and considerations in navigating the scenarios.

Integrating implementation science in clinical research to maximize public health impact: a call for the reporting and alignment of implementation strategy use with implementation outcomes in clinical research

BACKGROUND

Although comprehensive reporting guidelines for implementation strategy use within implementation research exist, they are rarely used by clinical (i.e., efficacy and effectiveness) researchers. In this debate, we argue that the lack of comprehensive reporting of implementation strategy use and alignment of those strategies with implementation outcomes within clinical research is a missed opportunity to efficiently narrow research-to-practice gaps.

MAIN BODY

We review ways that comprehensively specifying implementation strategy use can advance science, including enhancing replicability of clinical trials and reducing the time from clinical research to public health impact. We then propose that revisions to frequently used reporting guidelines in clinical research (e.g., CONSORT, TIDieR) are needed, review current methods for reporting implementation strategy use (e.g., utilizing StaRI), provide pragmatic suggestions on how to both prospectively and retrospectively specify implementation strategy use and align these strategies with implementation outcomes within clinical research, and offer a case study of using these methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The approaches recommended in this article will not only contribute to shared knowledge and language among clinical and implementation researchers but also facilitate the replication of efficacy and effectiveness research. Ultimately, we hope to accelerate translation from clinical to implementation research in order to expedite improvements in public health.

Perceptions of barriers and facilitators to engaging in implementation science: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Understanding barriers and facilitators to engaging with implementation science (IS) research can provide insight into how to improve efforts to encourage more researchers to participate in IS research.

STUDY DESIGN

The study design used is a grounded theory qualitative study.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with 20 health researchers familiar with IS that both report engaging in IS research and those that do not. We explored perceptions of barriers and facilitators to engaging in IS research. Themes surrounding difficulties defining IS, lack of training availability, and obstacles to forming research partnerships were discussed as barriers to engaging IS research. Interview topics were informed by the result of an online survey of health researchers in the US.

RESULTS

Themes surrounding difficulties defining IS, lack of training availability, and obstacles to forming research partnerships were discussed as barriers to engaging IS research. While accessible mentorship, exposure to formative experiences that develop interest in IS research and an increasing IS visibility were described as motivators for engaging in IS research.

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight the importance of mentorship and exposure to IS ideas in motivating engagement in IS research and the presence of training and methodological barriers to engagement. Future research should expand this line of inquiry to include the perspectives of more junior researchers and students to better reflect the current IS environment.

Correction to: Unrecognized implementation science engagement among health researchers in the USA: a national survey

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s43058-020-00027-3.].