Correction to: Unrecognized implementation science engagement among health researchers in the USA: a national survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stevens ER
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7427891 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Correction to: Unrecognized implementation science engagement among health researchers in the USA: a national survey.
Stevens Elizabeth R ER Shelley Donna D Boden-Albala Bernadette B
Implementation science communications 20200715
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s43058-020-00027-3.]. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionDissemination and implementation research training has great potential to improve the impact and reach of health-related research; however, research training needs from the end user perspective are unknown. This paper identifies and prioritizes dissemination and implementation research training needs.MethodsA diverse sample of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers was invited to participate in Concept Mapping in 2014-2015. Phase 1 (Brainstorming) gathered participants' responses to the prompt: To improve the impact of research evidence in practice and policy settings, a skill in which researchers need more training is… The resulting statement list was edited and included subsequent phases. Phase 2 (Sorting) asked participants to sort each statement into conceptual piles. In Phase 3 (Rating), participants rated the difficulty and importance of incorporating each statement into a training curriculum. A multidisciplinary team synthesized and interpreted the results in 2015-2016.ResultsDuring Brainstorming, 60 researchers and 60 practitioners/policymakers contributed 274 unique statements. Twenty-nine researchers and 16 practitioners completed sorting and rating. Nine concept clusters were identified: Communicating Research Findings, Improve Practice Partnerships, Make Research More Relevant, Strengthen Communication Skills, Develop Research Methods and Measures, Consider and Enhance Fit, Build Capacity for Research, and Understand Multilevel Context. Though researchers and practitioners had high agreement about importance (r =0.93) and difficulty (r =0.80), ratings differed for several clusters (e.g., Build Capacity for Research).ConclusionsIncluding researcher and practitioner perspectives in competency development for dissemination and implementation research identifies skills and capacities needed to conduct and communicate contextualized, meaningful, and relevant research.
| S-EPMC5321656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientists from nearly all disciplines face the problem of simultaneously evaluating many hypotheses. Conducting multiple comparisons increases the likelihood that a non-negligible proportion of associations will be false positives, clouding real discoveries. Drawing valid conclusions require taking into account the number of performed statistical tests and adjusting the statistical confidence measures. Several strategies exist to overcome the problem of multiple hypothesis testing. We aim to summarize critical statistical concepts and widely used correction approaches while also draw attention to frequently misinterpreted notions of statistical inference. We provide a step-by-step description of each multiple-testing correction method with clear examples and present an easy-to-follow guide for selecting the most suitable correction technique. To facilitate multiple-testing corrections, we developed a fully automated solution not requiring programming skills or the use of a command line. Our registration free online tool is available at www.multipletesting.com and compiles the five most frequently used adjustment tools, including the Bonferroni, the Holm (step-down), the Hochberg (step-up) corrections, allows to calculate False Discovery Rates (FDR) and q-values. The current summary provides a much needed practical synthesis of basic statistical concepts regarding multiple hypothesis testing in a comprehensible language with well-illustrated examples. The web tool will fill the gap for life science researchers by providing a user-friendly substitute for command-line alternatives.
| S-EPMC8189492 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10478366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This national survey aimed to identify how biomedical researchers using vertebrate animals viewed issues of significance for translational science, including oversight and public engagement, and to analyze how researcher characteristics and animal model choice correlate with those views. Responses from 1,187 researchers showed awareness of, and concerns about, problems of translation, reproducibility and rigor. Surveyed scientists were nevertheless optimistic about the value of animal studies, were favorable about research oversight and reported openness with non-scientists in discussing their animal work. Differences in survey responses among researchers also point to diverse perspectives within the animal research community on these matters. Most significant was variability associated with the primary type of animal that surveyed scientists used in their work. Other significant divergence in opinion appeared on the basis of professional role factors, including the type of degree held, workplace setting, type of funding, experience on an institutional animal care and use committee and personal demographic characteristics of age and gender.
| S-EPMC8889754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In implementation science (IS), conducting well-targeted and reproducible literature searches is challenging due to non-specific and varying terminology that is fragmented over multiple disciplines. A list of journals that publish IS-relevant content for use in search strings can support this process. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 56 Australian, European, and North American IS experts to identify and prioritize relevant journals that publish IS articles. Journals' relevance was assessed by providing each with a list of 12 journals, to which they were encouraged to add additional journal names and comments as free text. We also assessed which journals had published special IS-focused issues-identified via PubMed and Google searches-over the last 20 years. Data were analyzed descriptively. Between February 28 and March 15, 2020, a purposive sample of 34/56 experts participated in the survey (response rate: 60.7%). Implementation Science and BMC Health Services Research were perceived as relevant by 97.1% of participants; other journals' relevance varied internationally. Experts proposed 50 additional journals from various clinical fields and health science disciplines. We identified 12 calls and 53 special issues on IS published within various journals and research fields. Experts' comments confirmed the described challenges in identifying IS literature. This report presents experts' ratings of IS journals, which can be included in strategies supporting searches of IS evidence. However, challenges in identifying IS evidence remain geographically and interdisciplinary. Further investment is needed to develop reproducible search strings to capture IS evidence as an important step in improving IS research quality.
| S-EPMC8119993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ProblemDissemination and implementation (D&I) science provides the tools needed to close the gap between known intervention strategies and their effective application. The authors report on the Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) program-a D&I training program for postdoctoral or early-career cancer prevention and control scholars.ApproachMT-DIRC was a 2-year training institute in which fellows attended 2 annual Summer Institutes and other conferences and received didactic, group, and individual instruction; individualized mentoring; and other supports (e.g., pilot funding). A quasi-experimental design compared changes in 3 areas: mentoring, skills, and network composition. To evaluate mentoring and D&I skills, data from fellows on their mentors' mentoring competencies, their perspectives on the importance of and satisfaction with mentoring priority areas, and their self-rated skills in D&I competency domains were collected. Network composition data were collected from faculty and fellows for 3 core social network domains: contact, mentoring, and collaboration. Paired t tests (mentoring), linear mixed models (skills), and descriptive analyses (network composition) were performed.OutcomesMentors were rated as highly competent across all mentoring competencies, and each mentoring priority area showed reductions in gaps between satisfaction and importance between the 6 and 18 months post-first Summer Institute. Fellows' self-rated skills in D&I competencies improved significantly in all domains over time (range: 42.5%-52.9% increase from baseline to 18 months post-first Summer Institute). Mentorship and collaboration networks grew over time, with the highest number of collaboration network ties for scholarly manuscripts (n = 199) in 2018 and for research projects (n = 160) in 2019.Next stepsBuilding on study findings and existing literature, mentored training of scholars is an important approach for building D&I skills and networks, and thus to better applying the vast amount of available intervention evidence to benefit cancer control.
| S-EPMC7769184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMaternal health outcomes in the USA are far worse than in peer nations. Increasing implementation research in maternity care is critical to addressing quality gaps and unwarranted variations in care. Implementation research priorities have not yet been defined or well represented in the plans for maternal health research investments in the USA.MethodsThis descriptive study used a modified Delphi method to solicit and rank research priorities at the intersection of implementation science and maternal health through two sequential web-based surveys. A purposeful, yet broad sample of researchers with relevant subject matter knowledge was identified through searches of published articles and grant databases. The surveys addressed five implementation research areas in maternal health: (1) practices to prioritize for broader implementation, (2) practices to prioritize for de-implementation, (3) research questions about implementation determinants, (4) research questions about implementation strategies, and (5) research questions about methods/measures.ResultsOf 160 eligible researchers, 82 (51.2%) agreed to participate. Participants were predominantly female (90%) and White (75%). Sixty completed at least one of two surveys. The practices that participants prioritized for broader implementation were improved postpartum care, perinatal and postpartum mood disorder screening and management, and standardized management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. For de-implementation, practices believed to be most impactful if removed from or reduced in maternity care were cesarean delivery for low-risk patients and routine discontinuation of all psychiatric medications during pregnancy. The top methodological priorities of participants were improving the extent to which implementation science frameworks and measures address equity and developing approaches for involving patients in implementation research.ConclusionsThrough a web-based Delphi exercise, we identified implementation research priorities that researchers consider to have the greatest potential to improve the quality of maternity care in the USA. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of using modified Delphi approaches to engage researchers in setting implementation research priorities within a clinical area.
| S-EPMC10360260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During a week-long celebration of science, run under the federally supported National Science Week umbrella, the Catch a Rising Star: women in Queensland research (CaRS) programme flew scientists who identify as women to nine regional and remote communities in the Australian State of Queensland. The aim of the project was twofold: first, to bring science to remote and regional communities in a large, economically diverse state; and second, to determine whether media and public engagement provides career advancement opportunities for women scientists. This paper focuses on the latter goal. The data show: (i) a substantial majority (greater than 80%) of researchers thought the training and experience provided by the programme would help develop her career as a research scientist in the future, (ii) the majority (65%) thought the programme would help relate her research to end users, industry partners or stakeholders in the future, and (iii) analytics can help create a compelling narrative around engagement metrics and help to quantify influence. During the week-long project, scientists reached 600 000 impressions on one social media platform (Twitter) using a program hashtag. The breadth and depth of the project outcomes indicate funding bodies and employers could use similar data as an informative source of metrics to support hiring and promotion decisions. Although this project focused on researchers who identify as women, the lessons learned are applicable to researchers representing a diverse range of backgrounds. Future surveys will help determine whether the CaRS programme provided long-term career advantages to participating scientists and communities.
| S-EPMC5666252 | biostudies-other
Project description:EMBL Australia Bioinformatics Resource (EMBL-ABR) is a developing national research infrastructure, providing bioinformatics resources and support to life science and biomedical researchers in Australia. EMBL-ABR comprises 10 geographically distributed national nodes with one coordinating hub, with current funding provided through Bioplatforms Australia and the University of Melbourne for its initial 2-year development phase. The EMBL-ABR mission is to: (1) increase Australia's capacity in bioinformatics and data sciences; (2) contribute to the development of training in bioinformatics skills; (3) showcase Australian data sets at an international level and (4) enable engagement in international programs. The activities of EMBL-ABR are focussed in six key areas, aligning with comparable international initiatives such as ELIXIR, CyVerse and NIH Commons. These key areas-Tools, Data, Standards, Platforms, Compute and Training-are described in this article.
| S-EPMC6433737 | biostudies-other
Project description:With the increase in patient and consumer activism through the late twentieth century and into this century, patient roles in research evolved into a new model of research engagement, with patients serving as active advisors and co-leading or leading clinical research. By requiring active engagement of patients and other stakeholders, several government research funders have advanced this model, particularly in Canada, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia. A consortium of individuals from these countries formed a Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) consortium to examine critical issues in engaged research, establish consensus on definitions, and provide guidance for the field, beginning with an overview of how to involve stakeholders in health research (Concannon et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458-463) and continuing here with an examination of definitions of research engagement. The political and advocacy roots of engaged research are reflected in definitions. Engagement is conceptualized with reference to research project goals, from informing specific clinical decisions to informing health-system level decisions. Political and cultural differences across countries are evident. Some of these government funders focus on empirical rather than ethical rationales. In countries with centralized health technology assessment, the link between societal values and engaged research is explicit. Ethical rationales for engagement are explicit in most of the published literature on research engagement. Harmonization of definitions is recommended so that research engagement elements, methods, and outcomes and impacts can be clearly examined and understood, and so that the field of research engagement can proceed from a clear conceptual foundation. Specific recommendations for terminology definitions are provided. Placing engaged research on a continuum from specific clinical decisions to more global public and social justice concerns clarifies the type of engaged research, supports appropriate comparisons, and improves the rigor of engaged research methods. The results help identify knowledge gaps in this growing field.
| S-EPMC7048327 | biostudies-literature