Dataset Information

Dissemination and implementation of comparative effectiveness evidence: key informant interviews with Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions.

ABSTRACT: To identify ongoing practices and opportunities for improving national comparative effectiveness research (CER) translation through dissemination and implementation (D&I) via NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutions.Key informant interviews were conducted with 18 CTSA grantees sampled to represent a range of D&I efforts.The institutional representatives endorsed fostering CER translation nationally via the CTSA Consortium. However, five themes emerged from the interviews as barriers to CER D&I: lack of institutional awareness, insufficient capacity, lack of established D&I methods, confusion among stakeholders about what CER actually is and limited funding opportunities. Interviewees offered two key recommendations to improve CER translation: development of a centralized clearing house to facilitate the diffusion of CER D&I resources and methods across CTSA institutions; and formalization of the national CTSA network to leverage existing community engagement relationships and resources for the purpose of adapting and disseminating robust CER evidence locally with providers, patients and healthcare systems.

SUBMITTER: Morrato EH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3961460 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dissemination and implementation of comparative effectiveness evidence: key informant interviews with Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions.

Morrato Elaine H EH Concannon Thomas W TW Meissner Paul P Shah Nilay D ND Turner Barbara J BJ

Journal of comparative effectiveness research 20130301 2

<h4>Aim</h4>To identify ongoing practices and opportunities for improving national comparative effectiveness research (CER) translation through dissemination and implementation (D&I) via NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutions.<h4>Materials & methods</h4>Key informant interviews were conducted with 18 CTSA grantees sampled to represent a range of D&I efforts.<h4>Results & conclusions</h4>The institutional representatives endorsed fostering CER translation national ...[more]

PMID: 24236560

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examined participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability.MethodThe CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce in 2010 invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted.ResultsForty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78%-91%, by study type); 39% reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39%); desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49%) and participant registries (44%). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to institutional review board (IRB) review (30%) or contract approval (22%). All respondents' IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10% of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness.ConclusionsMany CTSAs lack the necessary frame work to support study accrual. Recom men dations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment plan ning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruit ment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.

Project description:IntroductionIn the last decade, there has been increased global policy and program momentum to promote early childhood development. The Care for Child Development (CCD) package, developed by UNICEF and the WHO, is a key tool responding to the global demand. The CCD package comprises two age-specific evidence-based recommendations for caregivers to 1) play and communicate and 2) responsively interact with their children (0-5 years) and was designed to be integrated within existing services to strengthen nurturing care for child development. The aim of this report was to provide an up-to-date global review of the implementation and evaluation of the CCD package.MethodsIn addition to a systematic review of 55 reports, we interviewed 23 key informants (including UNICEF and WHO personnel) to better understand the implementation of CCD.ResultsThe CCD package has been or is being implemented in 54 low- and middle-income countries and territories, and it has been integrated into government services across the health, social, and education sectors in 26 countries. Across these contexts, CCD has been adapted in three primary ways: 1) translations of CCD materials (mostly counseling cards) into local language(s), 2) adaptations of CCD materials for the local context, vulnerable children, or a humanitarian/emergency setting (e.g., including local play activities, using activities that are better suited to children with visual impairments), and 3) substantive modifications to the content of CCD materials (e.g., expansion of play and communication activities, addition of new themes, creation of a structured curriculum). While there is promising evidence and examples of good implementation practice, there has been mixed experience about implementation of CCD with respect to adaptation, training, supervision, integration into existing services, and monitoring implementation fidelity and quality. For example, many users of CCD found difficulties with training the workforce, garnering buy-in from governments, and ensuring benefits for families, among others.DiscussionAdditional knowledge on how to improve the effectiveness, implementation fidelity and quality, and acceptance of CCD is needed. Based on the findings of the review we make recommendations for future efforts to implement CCD at-scale.

Project description:Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is a structured, evidence-based assessment of the clinical, social, ethical and economic effects of a technology currently used in the health care system, to inform optimal use of that technology in comparison to its alternatives. Little is known about current international HTR practices. The objective of this research was to summarize experience-based information gathered from international experts on the development, initiation and implementation of a HTR program.A mixed methods approach, using a survey and in-depth interviews, was adopted. The survey covered 8 concepts: prioritization/identification of potentially obsolete technologies; program development; implementation; mitigation; program championing; stakeholder engagement; monitoring; and reinvestment. Members of Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) formed the sampling frame. Participation was solicited via email and the survey was administered online using SurveyMonkey. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. To gather more in-depth knowledge, semi-structured interviews were conducted among organizations with active HTR programs. Interview questions were developed using the same 8 concepts. The hour-long interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using constant comparative analysis.Ninety-five individuals responded to the survey: 49 were not discussing HTR, 21 were beginning to discuss HTR, nine were imminently developing a program, and 16 participants had programs and were completing reassessments. The survey results revealed that methods vary widely and that although HTR is a powerful tool, it is currently not being used to its full potential. Of the 16 with active programs, nine agreed to participate in follow-up interviews. Interview participants identified early and extensive stakeholder engagement as the most important factors for success. A lack of top-down support and financial and human resources are inhibiting program development.HTR is in its infancy. Although HTRs are being conducted, there are no standardized approaches. However, much can be learned from current international work. Future work should focus on developing a comprehensive methodology, reporting the processes of reassessments and sharing successes and challenges in a common platform.

Project description:BackgroundThe existing grant review criteria do not consider unique methods and priorities of Dissemination and Implementation Science (DIS). The ImplemeNtation and Improvement Science Proposals Evaluation CriTeria (INSPECT) scoring system includes 10 criteria based on Proctor et al.'s "ten key ingredients" and was developed to support the assessment of DIS research proposals. We describe how we adapted INSPECT and used it in combination with the NIH scoring system to evaluate pilot DIS study proposals through our DIS Center.MethodsWe adapted INSPECT to broaden considerations for diverse DIS settings and concepts (e.g., explicitly including dissemination and implementation methods). Five PhD-level researchers with intermediate to advanced DIS knowledge were trained to conduct reviews of seven grant applications using both the INSPECT and NIH criteria. The INSPECT overall scores range from 0 to 30 (higher scores are better), and the NIH overall scores range from 1 to 9 (lower scores are better). Each grant was independently reviewed by two reviewers, then discussed in a group meeting to compare the experiences using both criteria to evaluate the proposal and to finalize scoring decisions. A follow-up survey was sent to grant reviewers to solicit further reflections on each scoring criterion.ResultsAveraged across reviewers, the INSPECT overall scores ranged from 13 to 24, while the NIH overall scores ranged from 2 to 5. Reviewer reflections highlighted the unique value and utility for each scoring criterion. The NIH criteria had a broad scientific purview and were better suited to evaluate more effectiveness-focused and pre-implementation proposals not testing implementation strategies. The INSPECT criteria were easier to rate in terms of the quality of integrating DIS considerations into the proposal and to assess the potential for generalizability, real-world feasibility, and impact. Overall, reviewers noted that INSPECT was a helpful tool to guide DIS research proposal writing.ConclusionsWe confirmed complementarity in using both scoring criteria in our pilot study grant proposal review and highlighted the utility of INSPECT as a potential DIS resource for training and capacity building. Possible refinements to INSPECT include more explicit reviewer guidance on assessing pre-implementation proposals, providing reviewers with the opportunity to submit written commentary with each numerical rating, and greater clarity on rating criteria with overlapping descriptions.

Dataset Information

Dissemination and implementation of comparative effectiveness evidence: key informant interviews with Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions.

Publications

Dissemination and implementation of comparative effectiveness evidence: key informant interviews with Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets