A bibliographic review of public health dissemination and implementation research output and citation rates.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wolfenden L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4995384 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A bibliographic review of public health dissemination and implementation research output and citation rates.
Wolfenden Luke L Milat Andrew J AJ Lecathelinais Christophe C Skelton Eliza E Clinton-McHarg Tara T Williams Christopher C Wiggers John J Chai Li Kheng LK Yoong Sze Lin SL
Preventive medicine reports 20160808
The aim of this study was to describe the research output and citation rates (academic impact) of public health dissemination and implementation research according to research design and study type. A cross sectional bibliographic study was undertaken in 2013. All original data-based studies and review articles focusing on dissemination and implementation research that had been published in 10 randomly selected public health journals in 2008 were audited. The electronic database 'Scopus' was use ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAppropriate 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThis 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 registrationThe study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ga9pt/ ).
| S-EPMC10318803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A 2-day consensus working meeting, hosted by the United States National Institutes of Health and the Veterans Administration, focused on issues related to dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in measurement and reporting. Meeting participants included 23 researchers, practitioners, and decision makers from the USA and Canada who concluded that the field would greatly benefit from measurement resources to enhance the ease, harmonization, and rigor of D&I evaluation efforts. This paper describes the findings from an environmental scan and literature review of resources for D&I measures.We identified a total of 17 resources, including four web-based repositories and 12 static reviews or tools that attempted to synthesize and evaluate existing measures for D&I research. Thirteen resources came from the health discipline, and 11 were populated from database reviews. Ten focused on quantitative measures, and all were generated as a resource for researchers. Fourteen were organized according to an established D&I theory or framework, with the number of constructs and measures ranging from 1 to more than 450. Measure metadata was quite variable with only six providing information on the psychometric properties of measures.Additional guidance on the development and use of measures are needed. A number of approaches, resources, and critical areas for future work are discussed. Researchers and stakeholders are encouraged to take advantage of a number of funding mechanisms supporting this type of work.
| S-EPMC4802882 | biostudies-other
Project description:The relationship between traditional metrics of research impact (e.g., number of citations) and alternative metrics (altmetrics) such as Twitter activity are of great interest, but remain imprecisely quantified. We used generalized linear mixed modeling to estimate the relative effects of Twitter activity, journal impact factor, and time since publication on Web of Science citation rates of 1,599 primary research articles from 20 ecology journals published from 2012-2014. We found a strong positive relationship between Twitter activity (i.e., the number of unique tweets about an article) and number of citations. Twitter activity was a more important predictor of citation rates than 5-year journal impact factor. Moreover, Twitter activity was not driven by journal impact factor; the 'highest-impact' journals were not necessarily the most discussed online. The effect of Twitter activity was only about a fifth as strong as time since publication; accounting for this confounding factor was critical for estimating the true effects of Twitter use. Articles in impactful journals can become heavily cited, but articles in journals with lower impact factors can generate considerable Twitter activity and also become heavily cited. Authors may benefit from establishing a strong social media presence, but should not expect research to become highly cited solely through social media promotion. Our research demonstrates that altmetrics and traditional metrics can be closely related, but not identical. We suggest that both altmetrics and traditional citation rates can be useful metrics of research impact.
| S-EPMC5106010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policy has a tremendous potential to improve population health when informed by research evidence. Such evidence, however, typically plays a suboptimal role in policymaking processes. The field of policy dissemination and implementation research (policy D&I) exists to address this challenge. The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine the extent to which policy D&I was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), (2) identify trends in NIH-funded policy D&I, and (3) describe characteristics of NIH-funded policy D&I projects.The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to identify all projects funded through D&I-focused funding announcements. We screened for policy D&I projects by searching project title, abstract, and term fields for mentions of "policy," "policies," "law," "legal," "legislation," "ordinance," "statute," "regulation," "regulatory," "code," or "rule." A project was classified as policy D&I if it explicitly proposed to conduct research about the content of a policy, the process through which it was developed, or outcomes it produced. A coding guide was iteratively developed, and all projects were independently coded by two researchers. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to obtain additional project information and validate coding decisions. Descriptive statistics--stratified by funding mechanism, Institute, and project characteristics--were produced.Between 2007 and 2014, 146 projects were funded through the D&I funding announcements, 12 (8.2 %) of which were policy D&I. Policy D&I funding totaled $16,177,250, equivalent to 10.5 % of all funding through the D&I funding announcements. The proportion of funding for policy D&I projects ranged from 14.6 % in 2007 to 8.0 % in 2012. Policy D&I projects were primarily focused on policy outcomes (66.7 %), implementation (41.7 %), state-level policies (41.7 %), and policies within the USA (83.3 %). Tobacco (33.3 %) and cancer (25.0 %) control were the primary topics of focus. Many projects combined survey (58.3 %) and interview (33.3 %) methods with analysis of archival data sources.NIH has made an initial investment in policy D&I research, but the level of support has varied between Institutes. Policy D&I researchers have utilized a variety of designs, methods, and data sources to investigate the development processes, content, and outcomes of public and private policies.
| S-EPMC4700744 | biostudies-other
Project description:The mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) can be computed from readily accessible, public-use data on cancer incidence and mortality, and a high MIR value is an indicator of poor survival relative to incidence. Newly available data on congressional district-specific cancer incidence and mortality from the U.S. Cancer Statistics (USCS) database from 2011 to 2015 were used to compute MIR values for overall (all types combined), breast, cervix, colorectal, esophagus, lung, oral, pancreas, and prostate cancer. Congressional districts in the South and Midwest, including MS, AL, and KY, had higher (worse) MIR values for all cancer types combined than for the U.S. as a whole. For all cancers combined, there was a positive correlation between each district's percent of rural residents and the MIR (r?=?0.47; p?<?.001). The MIR for all cancer types combined was lower in districts within states that expanded Medicaid vs. those states that did not expand Medicaid (0.36 vs. 0.38; p?<?.001). A positive correlation was seen between the proportion of non-Hispanic Black residents and MIR (r?=?0.15; p?<?.01 for all cancers). Lower MIRs were observed in districts in New England and in states that expanded Medicaid. However, there also were some interesting departures from this rule (e.g., Wyoming, South Dakota, parts of Wisconsin and Florida). Rural congressional districts have generally higher MIRs than more urban districts. There is some concern that poorer, more rural states that did not expand Medicaid may experience greater disparities in MIRs relative to Medicaid expansion states in the future.
| S-EPMC7393609 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAn understanding of how public health research output from India is changing in relation to the disease burden and public health priorities is required in order to inform relevant research development. We therefore studied the trends in the public health research output from India during 2001-2008 that was readily available in the public domain.MethodsThe scope and type of the published research from India in 2007 that was included in the PubMed database was assessed and compared with a previous similar assessment for 2002. Papers were classified based on the review of abstracts and original public health research papers were assessed in detail. Impact factors for the journals were used to compute quality-adjusted research output. The websites of governmental organizations, academic and research institutions and international organizations were searched in order to identify and review reports on original public health research produced in India from 2001 to 2008. The reports were classified based on the topics covered and quality and their trends over time were assessed.ResultsThe number of original health research papers from India in PubMed doubled from 4494 in 2002 to 9066 in 2007. This included a 3.1-fold increase in public health research papers, but these comprised only 5% of the total papers in 2007. Within public health, the increase was lowest for the health system and policy category. Several major causes of disease burden in India continued to be underrepresented in the quality-adjusted public health research output in 2007. The number of papers evaluating population health interventions increased from 2002 to 2007, but there were none on the leading non-communicable causes of disease burden or on road traffic injuries. The number of identified original public health research reports increased by 64.7% from 204 in 2001-2004 to 336 in 2005-2008. The proportion of reports on reproductive and child health was very high but decreased slightly from 38.7% of the total in 2001-2004 to 31.5% in 2005-2008 (P = 0.09); those on the leading chronic non-communicable conditions and injuries increased from 6.4% to 13.4% (P = 0.01) but this was still much lower than their contribution to the disease burden. Health system/policy issues were the topic in 27.4% reports but health information issues were covered in a miniscule 0.6% reports. The proportion of reports that were evaluations increased slightly from 26% in 2001-2004 to 31.5% in 2005-2008, with this proportion being higher among the reports commissioned by international organizations (P < 0.001). The proportion of reports commissioned by Indian governmental organizations alone, or in collaboration with international organizations, doubled from 2001-2004 to 2005-2008 (P < 0.001). Only 25% of the total 540 reports had a quality score of adequate or better. The quality of reports produced by collaborations between Indian and international organizations was higher than those produced by Indian or international organizations alone (P < 0.001).ConclusionThis is the first analysis from India that includes research reports in addition to published papers. It provides the most up-to-date understanding of public health research output from India. The increase in available public health research output and the increase in commissioning of this research by Indian governmental organizations are encouraging. However, the distribution of research topics and the quality of research reports continue to be unsatisfactory. It is necessary for health policy to address these continuing deficits in public health research in order to reduce the very large disease burden in India.
| S-EPMC2766381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionA lack of awareness on how to engage adolescents in research has been reported as one of the barriers to meaningful youth involvement in health research. Currently, available guidelines on youth involvement are limited in terms of the scope (e.g., focused on limited health research areas), content (e.g., include broad principles) and context (e.g., most guidelines are from high-income countries) for which the guidelines are applicable. To address this, we will develop a set of comprehensive guidelines based on consolidated evidence on youth involvement in health research. To inform these guidelines, we are first conducting an umbrella review to (1) summarise and synthesise findings from reviews on involving adolescents in health research, (2) consolidate the challenges experienced in youth involvement and the recommendations to mitigate these challenges, (3) identify best practices and (4) identify gaps and methodological weaknesses in the extant literature on involving adolescents in health research.Methods and analysisWe will include review articles exploring adolescents' involvement in studies aiming to improve their physical or mental health. Databases to be searched include Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Epistemonikos and Health Systems Evidence. A grey literature search will be conducted in Web of Science, ProQuest, Google Scholar and PROSPERO, supplemented by a handsearch of the reference lists of eligible reviews, relevant journals, websites of related organisations and input from experts. Data will be analysed using narrative synthesis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as we are not collecting participant data as part of this review. The findings of this umbrella review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, participatory workshops and academic conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42021287467.
| S-EPMC10254960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public sources fund the majority of UK infection research, but citizens currently have no formal role in resource allocation. To explore the feasibility and willingness of citizens to engage in strategic decision making, we developed and tested a practical tool to capture public priorities for research.A scenario including six infection themes for funding was developed to assess citizen priorities for research funding. This was tested over two days at a university public festival. Votes were cast anonymously along with rationale for selection. The scenario was then implemented during a three-hour focus group exploring views on engagement in strategic decisions and in-depth evaluation of the tool.188/491(38%) prioritized funding research into drug-resistant infections followed by emerging infections(18%). Results were similar between both days. Focus groups contained a total of 20 citizens with an equal gender split, range of ethnicities and ages ranging from 18 to >70 years. The tool was perceived as clear with participants able to make informed comparisons. Rationale for funding choices provided by voters and focus group participants are grouped into three major themes: (i) Information processing; (ii) Knowledge of the problem; (iii) Responsibility; and a unique theme within the focus groups (iv) The potential role of citizens in decision making. Divergent perceptions of relevance and confidence of "non-experts" as decision makers were expressed.Voting scenarios can be used to collect, en-masse, citizens' choices and rationale for research priorities. Ensuring adequate levels of citizen information and confidence is important to allow deployment in other formats.
| S-EPMC5750690 | biostudies-other
Project description:The Emergency Response Operations Management (EROM) Literature Sample is a collection of 644 papers winnowed from over 5,000 related articles through application of a binary classification tree, collecting the state-of-the-art in decision models of emergencies in progress. References are scraped from each of these 644 publications, to create a dataset describing a total of 14,821 papers linked by 23,175 citation relationships, the analysis of which is presented in, "Modeling Emergency Response Operations: A Theory Building Survey" in Computers and Operations Research[1]. Bibliographic research communities are identified within the data set by framing the task of network partitioning as a cluster ensemble problem from machine learning [2]. This data may be used in several ways, including as an extended reference section for [1], as all 644 papers studied could not be individually cited there. Other examples of potential reuse are further study of a particular research cluster, comparative study of the structural characteristics of this bibliographic network with literature in other fields, and as a test-bed for the further development of robust clustering algorithms.
| S-EPMC7334296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:This study explores the variety of information formats used and audiences targeted by public health faculty in the process of disseminating research. Methods:The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve faculty members in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago, asking them about their research practices, habits, and preferences. Results:Faculty scholars disseminate their research findings in a variety of formats intended for multiple audiences, including not only their peers in academia, but also public health practitioners, policymakers, government and other agencies, and community partners. Conclusion:Librarians who serve public health faculty should bear in mind the diversity of faculty's information needs when designing and improving library services and resources, particularly those related to research dissemination and knowledge translation. Promising areas for growth in health sciences libraries include supporting data visualization, measuring the impact of non-scholarly publications, and promoting institutional repositories for dissemination of research.
| S-EPMC6579591 | biostudies-literature