Toolkits for dissemination and implementation research: Preliminary development.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Baumann AA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6382336 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Toolkits for dissemination and implementation research: Preliminary development.
Baumann Ana A AA Morshed Alexandra B AB Tabak Rachel G RG Proctor Enola K EK
Journal of clinical and translational science 20180801 4
The Dissemination and Implementation Research Core, a research methods core from the Clinical and Translation Science Award at Washington University in St. Louis Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences, developed toolkits about dissemination and implementation (D&I) concepts (e.g., D&I outcomes, strategies). This paper reports on the development of the toolkits. These toolkits respond to 3 identified needs for capacity building in D&I research: resources for investigators new to the D&I ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ContextTheories and frameworks (hereafter called models) enhance dissemination and implementation (D&I) research by making the spread of evidence-based interventions more likely. This work organizes and synthesizes these models by (1) developing an inventory of models used in D&I research; (2) synthesizing this information; and (3) providing guidance on how to select a model to inform study design and execution.Evidence acquisitionThis review began with commonly cited models and model developers and used snowball sampling to collect models developed in any year from journal articles, presentations, and books. All models were analyzed and categorized in 2011 based on three author-defined variables: construct flexibility, focus on dissemination and/or implementation activities (D/I), and the socioecologic framework (SEF) level. Five-point scales were used to rate construct flexibility from broad to operational and D/I activities from dissemination-focused to implementation-focused. All SEF levels (system, community, organization, and individual) applicable to a model were also extracted. Models that addressed policy activities were noted.Evidence synthesisSixty-one models were included in this review. Each of the five categories in the construct flexibility and D/I scales had at least four models. Models were distributed across all levels of the SEF; the fewest models (n=8) addressed policy activities. To assist researchers in selecting and utilizing a model throughout the research process, the authors present and explain examples of how models have been used.ConclusionsThese findings may enable researchers to better identify and select models to inform their D&I work.
| S-EPMC3592983 | 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:BackgroundThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had substantial global morbidity and mortality. Clinical research related to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19 is a top priority. Effective and efficient recruitment is challenging even without added constraints of a global pandemic. Recruitment registries offer a potential solution to slow or difficult recruitment.ObjectivesThe purpose of this paper is to describe the design and implementation of a digital research recruitment registry to optimize awareness and participant enrollment for COVID-19-related research in Baltimore and to report preliminary results.MethodsPlanning began in March 2020, and the registry launched in July 2020. The primary recruitment mechanisms include electronic medical record data, postcards distributed at testing sites, and digital advertising campaigns. Following consent in a Research Electronic Data Capture survey, participants answer questions related to COVID-19 exposure, testing, and willingness to participate in research. Branching logic presents participants with studies they might be eligible for.ResultsAs of March 24, 2021, 9010 participants have enrolled, and 64.2% are female, 80.6% are White, 9.4% are Black or African American, and 6% are Hispanic or Latino. Phone outreach has had the highest response rate (13.1%), followed by email (11.9%), text (11.4%), and patient portal message (9.4%). Eleven study teams have utilized the registry, and 4596 matches have been made between study teams and interested volunteers.ConclusionEffective and efficient recruitment strategies are more important now than ever due to the time-limited nature of COVID-19 research. Pilot efforts have been successful in connecting interested participants with recruiting study teams.
| S-EPMC8387691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has grown rapidly, there is an ongoing need to understand how to build and sustain capacity in individuals and institutions conducting research. There are three inter-related domains for capacity building: people, settings, and activities. Since 2008, Washington University in St. Louis has dedicated significant attention and resources toward building D&I research capacity. This paper describes our process, challenges, and lessons with the goal of informing others who may have similar aims at their own institution.ActivitiesAn informal collaborative, the Washington University Network for Dissemination and Implementation Research (WUNDIR), began with a small group and now has 49 regular members. Attendees represent a wide variety of settings and content areas and meet every 6 weeks for half-day sessions. A logic model organizes WUNDIR inputs, activities, and outcomes. A mixed-methods evaluation showed that the network has led to new professional connections and enhanced skills (e.g., grant and publication development). As one of four, ongoing, formal programs, the Dissemination and Implementation Research Core (DIRC) was our first major component of D&I infrastructure. DIRC's mission is to accelerate the public health impact of clinical and health services research by increasing the engagement of investigators in later stages of translational research. The aims of DIRC are to advance D&I science and to develop and equip researchers with tools for D&I research. As a second formal component, the Washington University Institute for Public Health has provided significant support for D&I research through pilot projects and a small grants program. In a third set of formal programs, two R25 training grants (one in mental health and one in cancer) support post-doctoral scholars for intensive training and mentoring in D&I science. Finally, our team coordinates closely with D&I functions within research centers across the university. We share a series of challenges and potential solutions.ConclusionOur experience in developing D&I research at Washington University in St. Louis shows how significant capacity can be built in a relatively short period of time. Many of our ideas and ingredients for success can be replicated, tailored, and improved upon by others.
| S-EPMC5559847 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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 used to calculate 5-year citation rates for all included publications. Of the 1648 publications examined, 216 were original data-based research or literature reviews focusing on dissemination and implementation research. Of these 72% were classified as descriptive/epidemiological, 26% were intervention and just 1.9% were measurement research. Cross-sectional studies were the most common study design (47%). Reviews, randomized trials, non-randomized trials and decision/cost-effectiveness studies each represented between 6 and 10% of all output. Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were the most frequently cited study designs. The study suggests that publications that had the greatest academic impact (highest citation rates) made up only a small proportion of overall public health dissemination and implementation research output.
| S-EPMC4995384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe need to better understand implementing evidence-informed dementia care has been recognised in multiple priority-setting partnerships. The aim of this scoping review was to give an overview of the state of the evidence on implementation and dissemination of dementia care, and create a systematic evidence map.MethodsWe sought studies that addressed dissemination and implementation strategies or described barriers and facilitators to implementation across dementia stages and care settings. Twelve databases were searched from inception to October 2015 followed by forward citation and grey literature searches. Quantitative studies with a comparative research design and qualitative studies with recognised methods of data collection were included. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers with discrepancies resolved by a third where necessary. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Strategies were mapped according to the ERIC compilation.ResultsEighty-eight studies were included (30 quantitative, 34 qualitative and 24 mixed-methods studies). Approximately 60% of studies reported implementation strategies to improve practice: training and education of professionals (94%), promotion of stakeholder interrelationships (69%) and evaluative strategies (46%) were common; financial strategies were rare (15%). Nearly 70% of studies reported barriers or facilitators of care practices primarily within residential care settings. Organisational factors, including time constraints and increased workload, were recurrent barriers, whereas leadership and managerial support were often reported to promote implementation. Less is known about implementation activities in primary care and hospital settings, or the views and experiences of people with dementia and their family caregivers.ConclusionThis scoping review and mapping of the evidence reveals a paucity of robust evidence to inform the successful dissemination and implementation of evidence-based dementia care. Further exploration of the most appropriate methods to evaluate and report initiatives to bring about change and of the effectiveness of implementation strategies is necessary if we are to make changes in practice that improve dementia care.
| S-EPMC5513053 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs the field of D&I (dissemination and implementation) science grows to meet the need for more effective and timely applications of research findings in routine practice, the demand for formalized training programs has increased concurrently. The Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) Program aims to build capacity in the cancer control D&I research workforce, especially among early career researchers. This paper outlines the various components of the program and reports results of systematic evaluations to ascertain its effectiveness.MethodsEssential features of the program include selection of early career fellows or more experienced investigators with a focus relevant to cancer control transitioning to a D&I research focus, a 5-day intensive training institute, ongoing peer and senior mentoring, mentored planning and work on a D&I research proposal or project, limited pilot funding, and training and ongoing improvement activities for mentors. The core faculty and staff members of the MT-DIRC program gathered baseline and ongoing evaluation data regarding D&I skill acquisition and mentoring competency through participant surveys and analyzed it by iterative collective reflection.ResultsA majority (79%) of fellows are female, assistant professors (55%); 59% are in allied health disciplines, and 48% focus on cancer prevention research. Forty-three D&I research competencies were assessed; all improved from baseline to 6 and 18 months. These effects were apparent across beginner, intermediate, and advanced initial D&I competency levels and across the competency domains. Mentoring competency was rated very highly by the fellows--higher than rated by the mentors themselves. The importance of different mentoring activities, as rated by the fellows, was generally congruent with their satisfaction with the activities, with the exception of relatively greater satisfaction with the degree of emotional support and relatively lower satisfaction for skill building and opportunity initially.ConclusionsThese first years of MT-DIRC demonstrated the program's ability to attract, engage, and improve fellows' competencies and skills and implement a multicomponent mentoring program that was well received. This account of the program can serve as a basis for potential replication and evolution of this model in training future D&I science researchers.
| S-EPMC5778694 | 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:BackgroundThe need for optimal study designs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research is increasingly recognized. Despite the wide range of study designs available for D&I research, we lack understanding of the types of designs and methodologies that are routinely used in the field. This review assesses the designs and methodologies in recently proposed D&I studies and provides resources to guide design decisions.MethodsWe reviewed 404 study protocols published in the journal Implementation Science from 2/2006 to 9/2017. Eligible studies tested the efficacy or effectiveness of D&I strategies (i.e., not effectiveness of the underlying clinical or public health intervention); had a comparison by group and/or time; and used ≥1 quantitative measure. Several design elements were extracted: design category (e.g., randomized); design type [e.g., cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT)]; data type (e.g., quantitative); D&I theoretical framework; levels of treatment assignment, intervention, and measurement; and country in which the research was conducted. Each protocol was double-coded, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.ResultsOf the 404 protocols reviewed, 212 (52%) studies tested one or more implementation strategy across 208 manuscripts, therefore meeting inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 77% utilized randomized designs, primarily cluster RCTs. The use of alternative designs (e.g., stepped wedge) increased over time. Fewer studies were quasi-experimental (17%) or observational (6%). Many study design categories (e.g., controlled pre-post, matched pair cluster design) were represented by only one or two studies. Most articles proposed quantitative and qualitative methods (61%), with the remaining 39% proposing only quantitative. Half of protocols (52%) reported using a theoretical framework to guide the study. The four most frequently reported frameworks were Consolidated Framework for Implementing Research and RE-AIM (n = 16 each), followed by Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Theoretical Domains Framework (n = 12 each).ConclusionWhile several novel designs for D&I research have been proposed (e.g., stepped wedge, adaptive designs), the majority of the studies in our sample employed RCT designs. Alternative study designs are increasing in use but may be underutilized for a variety of reasons, including preference of funders or lack of awareness of these designs. Promisingly, the prevalent use of quantitative and qualitative methods together reflects methodological innovation in newer D&I research.
| S-EPMC5826311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Faith-based organizations, with broad reach and trust, are well-positioned to promote health. The purpose of the study was to examine 12-month implementation and its predictors in the statewide Faith, Activity, and Nutrition (FAN) dissemination and implementation (D&I) study. Churches (n = 93; 42% predominantly African American) in the [South Carolina] Conference of the United Methodist Church trained by Community Health Advisors participated in the study. Church FAN coordinators (n = 92) completed implementation surveys regarding opportunities, policies, messages, and pastor support for physical activity (PA) and healthy eating (HE) at baseline and 12 months. FAN coordinators and pastors (n = 93) completed CFIR-based measures at baseline, immediate post-training, and 12 months. Repeated measures ANOVAs tested change in PA and HE implementation composite scores; Cohen's d indicated magnitude of change. Mixed model linear regression tested whether CFIR items predicted 12-month implementation, controlling for baseline implementation. PA (d = 1.42) and HE (d = 2.05) implementation increased significantly over time. PA and HE implementation were significantly greater in predominantly African American (versus White) congregations, and HE implementation was greater in churches with <500 members. FAN coordinators' ratings of the inner setting (networks/communication, culture, tension for change, organizational rewards, readiness, and congregant needs) and implementation process (engaging opinion leaders and champions) domains were most predictive of implementation outcomes. Few pastor ratings related to implementation outcomes. This study identified constructs, guided by CFIR, that may be important for understanding PA and HE implementation in churches. Future studies will need to test them for replication. Greater changes in implementation outcomes among African American churches underscores the potential of promoting health equity through this setting.
| S-EPMC8496554 | biostudies-literature