Dataset Information

The complex nature of research dissemination practices among public health faculty researchers.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Hanneke R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6579591 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The complex nature of research dissemination practices among public health faculty researchers.

Hanneke Rosie R Link Jeanne M JM

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20190701 3

<h4>Objective</h4>This study explores the variety of information formats used and audiences targeted by public health faculty in the process of disseminating research.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>Faculty scholars disseminate their research findings in a variety of formats intend ...[more]

PMID: 31258440

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResearch findings are not always disseminated in ways preferred by audiences, and research dissemination is not always considered a priority by researchers. While designing for dissemination (D4D) provides an active process to facilitate effective dissemination, use of these practices in China is largely unknown. We aimed to describe the designing for dissemination activities and practices among public health researchers in China.MethodsIn January 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in 61 sub-committees of four national academic societies which include a wide range of health disciplines. The sample mainly involved researchers at universities or research institutions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at national or regional levels, and hospitals. Participants completed a 42-item online questionnaire. Respondent characteristics, dissemination routes, dissemination barriers, organizational support, and personal practice of D4D were examined with descriptive analyses.ResultsOf 956 respondents, 737 were researchers. Among these researchers, 58.1% had disseminated their research findings. Although there were some variation in the commonly used routes among different groups, academic journals (82.2%) and academic conferences (73.4%) were the most frequently used routes. Barriers to dissemination to non-research audiences existed at both organizational level (e.g., a lack of financial resources, platforms, and collaboration mechanisms) and individual level (e.g., a lack of time, knowledge, and skills, and uncertainty on how to disseminate). About a quarter of respondents (26.7%) had a dedicated person or team for dissemination in their unit or organization, with university researchers reporting a significantly higher proportion than their counterparts (P < 0.05). Only 14.2% of respondents always or usually used frameworks or theories to plan dissemination activities, 26.2% planned dissemination activities early, and 27.1% always or usually involved stakeholders in the research and dissemination process. Respondents with working experience in a practice or policy setting or dissemination and implementation training experience were more likely to apply these D4D strategies (P < 0.05).ConclusionConsiderable room exists for improvement in using impactful dissemination routes, tackling multiple barriers, providing organizational support, and applying D4D strategies among Chinese public health researchers. Our findings have implications for structural changes in academic incentive systems, collaborations and partnerships, funding priorities, and training opportunities.

Project description:Background:The significance of patient and public engagement is increasingly recognized in health research, demonstrated by explicit requirements for patient and public engagement by funding agencies and journals. Such requirements have charged health researchers with leading patient and public engagement efforts, but evidence suggests that this practice is still evolving. Little research has explored the experiences and training needs of health researchers. This study aimed to establish a baseline understanding of the experiences, perceptions and training needs of health researchers in engaging patients and the public in health research in the context of Manitoba. Methods:A cross-sectional 50-item questionnaire was distributed using a multi-phase purposive sampling strategy targeting health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. Data was summarized using frequencies, percentages and analyzed using chi-square testing. A local patient engagement advisory group was consulted at the interpretation stage of the study to obtain feedback and input on the findings and their implications. Results:Responses from 53 health researchers were included. Most participants had engaged patients and the public in their own research (n =?43, 81.1%). Those who had engaged reported having some (n =?19, 44.2%), extensive (n =?14, 32.6%) or a little (n =?10, 23.3%) experience with this process. Most engaged at the levels of inform, consult or involve (81.3, 64.6 and 54.2% respectively), while fewer engaged at the collaborate (37.5%) or patient-directed levels (12.5%). Recruitment occurred using a number of approaches and engagement occurred at various phases of the research process, while main groups engaged were patients (n =?38, 82.6%) and families/caregivers (n =?25, 54.4%). Barriers to engaging patients and the public in health research included funding, time, compensation, logistics, recruitment, motivation at both the patient and researcher level, and skills of researchers to engage. Researchers reported an overwhelming need and interest for supports, funding and training to effectively engage patients and the public in health research. Consultation with the patient advisory group provided further insight on study findings and areas for future research. Conclusions:Participating Manitoba health researchers engaged patients and the public in health research at multiple, but typically lower levels of involvement. Findings highlight the barriers to effective, authentic and meaningful patient and public engagement and support the need for targeted training, supports, funding and time for health researchers.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) ensures that research is designed and conducted in a manner that is most beneficial to the individuals whom it will impact. It has an undisputed place in applied research and is required by many funding bodies. However, PPI in statistical methodology research is more challenging and work is needed to identify where and how patients and the public can meaningfully input in this area.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional research study was conducted using an online questionnaire, which asked statistical methodologists about themselves and their experience conducting PPI, either to inform a grant application or during a funded statistical methodology project. The survey included both closed-text responses, which were reported using summary statistics, and open-ended questions for which common themes were identified.Results119 complete responses were recorded. Individuals who completed the survey displayed an even range of ages, career lengths and positions, with the majority working in academia. 40.3% of participants reported undertaking PPI to inform a grant application and the majority reported that the inclusion of PPI was received positively by the funder. Only 21.0% of participants reported undertaking PPI during a methodological project. 31.0% of individuals thought that PPI was "very" or "extremely" relevant to statistical methodology research, with 45.5% responding "somewhat" and 24.4% answering "not at all" or "not very". Arguments for including PPI were that it can provide the motivation for research and shape the research question. Negative opinions included that it is too technical for the public to understand, so they cannot have a meaningful impact.ConclusionsThis survey found that the views of statistical methodologists on the inclusion of PPI in their research are varied, with some individuals having particularly strong opinions, both positive and negative. Whilst this is clearly a divisive topic, one commonly identified theme was that many researchers are willing to try and incorporate meaningful PPI into their research but would feel more confident if they had access to resources such as specialised training, guidelines, and case studies.

Project description:ObjectivesExplore the occurrence and nature of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research (HSR) publications authored by researchers from HSR institutions in the Netherlands.DesignIn a joint effort to assure the overall quality of HSR publications in the Netherlands, 13 HSR institutions in the Netherlands participated in this study. Together with these institutions, we constructed and validated an assessment instrument covering 35 possible QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions. Two reviewers independently assessed a random sample of 116 HSR articles authored by researchers from these institutions published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals in 2016.SettingNetherlands, 2016.Sample116 international peer-reviewed HSR publications.Main outcome measuresMedian number of QRPs per publication, the percentage of publications with observed QRP frequencies, occurrence of specific QRPs and difference in total number of QRPs by methodological approach, type of research and study design.ResultsWe identified a median of six QRPs per publication out of 35 possible QRPs. QRPs occurred most frequently in the reporting of implications for practice, recommendations for practice, contradictory evidence, study limitations and conclusions based on the results and in the context of the literature. We identified no differences in total number of QRPs in papers based on different methodological approach, type of research or study design.ConclusionsGiven the applied nature of HSR, both the severity of the identified QRPs, and the recommendations for policy and practice in HSR publications warrant discussion. We recommend that the HSR field further define and establish its own scientific norms in publication practices to improve scientific reporting and strengthen the impact of HSR. The results of our study can serve as an empirical basis for continuous critical reflection on the reporting of messages and conclusions.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in health research may improve both the relevance and quality of the research. There is however a lack of research investigating the experiences, attitudes and barriers towards PPI in clinical research in Norway. The Norwegian Clinical Research Infrastructure Network therefore conducted a survey among researchers and PPI contributors aiming to investigate experiences with PPI and identify current challenges for successful involvement.MethodsTwo survey questionnaires were developed and distributed in October and November 2021. The survey targeting 1185 researchers was distributed from the research administrative system in the Regional Health Trusts. The survey targeting PPI contributors was distributed through Norwegian patient organisations, regional and national competence centers.ResultsThe response rate was 30% among researchers and was unobtainable from PPI contributors due to the survey distribution strategy. PPI was most frequently used in the planning and conduct of the studies, and less utilized in dissemination and implementation of results. Both researchers and user representatives were generally positive to PPI, and agreed that PPI might be more useful in clinical research than in underpinning research. Researchers and PPI contributors who reported that roles and expectations were clarified in advance, were more likely to experience a common understanding of roles and responsibilities in the research project. Both groups pointed to the importance of earmarked funding for PPI activities. There was a demand for a closer collaboration between researchers and patient organisations to develop accessible tools and effective models for PPI in health research.ConclusionsSurveys among clinical researchers and PPI contributors indicate overall positive attitudes towards PPI in clinical research. However, more resources, such as budget, time, and accessible tools, are needed. Clarifying roles and expectations, and creating new PPI models under resource constraints can enhance its effectiveness. PPI is underutilized in disseminating and implementing research results, presenting an opportunity for improving healthcare outcomes.

Dataset Information

The complex nature of research dissemination practices among public health faculty researchers.

Publications

The complex nature of research dissemination practices among public health faculty researchers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets