The "D&I Bridge": introducing a teaching tool to define the D, the I, and the why

Interest in learning dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is at an all-time high. As founding faculty and fellows of a new center focused on D&I science, we have found that non-specialist researchers and newcomers to D&I science often express confusion around the difference between the D and the I. Relatedly, they struggle to identify what their specific D&I projects target to impact public health within the amorphous "black box" that is the singular, loosely defined "research-to-practice gap." To improve conceptual clarity and enhance engagement with D&I science, we developed a graphic-the D&I Bridge-and an accompanying glossary of terms to use as a teaching and framing tool. The D&I Bridge depicts D&I science as bridging what we know from public health knowledge to what we do in public health practice with intention and equity, and it spans over four distinct, inter-related gaps: the public health supply gap, the public health demand gap, the methodological/scientific gap, and the expertise capacity gap. The public health supply gap is addressed by implementation strategies, whereas the public health demand gap is addressed by dissemination strategies. The methodological/scientific gap is addressed by producing generalizable knowledge about D&I, and the expertise capacity gap is addressed by developing the multi-disciplinary workforce needed to advance D&I. Initial practice feedback about the D&I Bridge has been positive, and this conceptualization of D&I science has helped inform our center's D&I training, D&I project consultations, and strategic planning. We believe the D&I Bridge provides a useful heuristic for helping non-specialists understand the differential scopes of various D&I science projects as well as specific gaps that may be addressed by D&I methods.

Re-visiting the call for translation of cancer survivorship research: collaborative multidisciplinary approaches to improve translation and dissemination

BACKGROUND

The number of cancer survivors in the US is dramatically increasing and survivors are living longer, making the ongoing care and quality of life in this growing population an important public health issue. Although there has been significant progress in cancer survivorship research, gaps in translating this research to real-world settings to benefit survivors remain.

METHODS

The number and type of cancer survivorship research activities in past and current projects were gathered in reports and work plans from the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN). Additionally, current cross-center projects were aligned with common constructs in dissemination and implementation science to provide a narrative review of progress on translational research.

RESULTS

A review of historical activities in the CPCRN indicates that there has been consistent engagement in survivorship from multiple institutions over the last decade, generating 84 grants, 168 papers and 162 presentations. The current membership of the Survivorship Workgroup includes multiple disciplines and all 8 participating institutions. Together these Workgroup members have developed 6 projects, all of which address multiple domains in translational research such as feasibility, practicality, and organizational and cultural factors that affect implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This review of past and ongoing activities in the CPCRN suggests that survivorship has been a consistent priority including the translation of evidence-based approaches into practice. Specific gaps in the translational research agenda that could be the focus of future investigations by Workgroup members and others include the practical and logistic aspects of interventions such as cost and policy.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Research has the potential to influence US social policy; however, existing research in this area lacks a coherent message. The Model for Dissemination of Research provides a framework through which to synthesize lessons learned from research to date on the process of translating research to US policymakers.

METHODS

The peer-reviewed and grey literature was systematically reviewed to understand common strategies for disseminating social policy research to policymakers in the United States. We searched Academic Search Premier, PolicyFile, SocINDEX, Social Work Abstracts, and Web of Science from January 1980 through December 2019. Articles were independently reviewed and thematically analyzed by two investigators and organized using the Model for Dissemination of Research.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 5225 titles and abstracts for inclusion consideration. 303 full-text articles were reviewed with 27 meeting inclusion criteria. Common sources of research dissemination included government, academic researchers, the peer reviewed literature, and independent organizations. The most frequently disseminated research topics were health-related, and legislators and executive branch administrators were the most common target audience. Print materials and personal communication were the most common channels for disseminating research to policymakers. There was variation in dissemination channels by level of government (e.g., a more formal legislative process at the federal level compared with other levesl). Findings from this work suggest that dissemination is most effective when it starts early, galvanizes support, uses champions and brokers, considers contextual factors, is timely, relevant, and accessible, and knows the players and process.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective dissemination of research to US policymakers exists; yet, rigorous quantitative evaluation is rare. A number of cross-cutting strategies appear to enhance the translation of research evidence into policy.

REGISTRATION

Not registered.

Barriers to the evaluation of evidence-based public health policy

Public health policy has the potential to produce great benefits for individuals and communities. There is growing demand that such efforts be rigorously evaluated to ensure that the expected benefits are, in fact, realised. Commonly, public health policy is evaluated by consumer acceptability, reach, or changes in knowledge and attitudes. Non-robust research designs are often used. But these approaches to evaluation do not answer three critical questions: Has a change in the desired outcome occurred? Was it a consequence of the policy and not some extraneous factor? Was the size of the change considered significant and cost-effective? We, a team of government and academic scholars working in research and evaluation, have examined some of the more common impediments to robust evaluation: political impediments, a lack of investment in evaluation capacity within bureaucracy, and the failure of academic researchers to understand the need for the evaluation of public health policy.

Using Community Partnerships to Better Understand the Barriers to Using an Evidence-Based, Parent-Mediated Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorder in a Medicaid System

Service use disparities have been noted to impede under-resourced families' ability to access high-quality services for their child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). These disparities are particularly relevant for parent-mediated interventions and may suggest a lack of fit between these interventions and the needs of under-resourced community settings. This study used Roger's Diffusion of Innovations theory to guide community partnerships aimed at understanding the perceived compatibility, complexity, and relative advantage of using an evidence-based, parent-mediated intervention (Project ImPACT) within a Medicaid system. Three focus groups were conducted with 16 Medicaid-eligible parents, and three focus groups were conducted with 16 ASD providers operating within a Medicaid system. Across all groups, parents and providers reported general interest in using Project ImPACT. However, primary themes emerged regarding the need to (a) reduce the complexity of written materials; (b) allow for a more flexible program delivery; (c) ensure a strong parent-therapist alliance; (d) involve the extended family; and (e) help families practice the intervention within their preexisting routines. Results are discussed as they relate to the design and fit of evidence-based, parent-mediated interventions for under-resourced community settings.