Measurement resources for dissemination and implementation research in health.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rabin BA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4802882 | biostudies-other | 2016 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9149529 | biostudies-literature
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: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: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 field, consolidation of tools, and limitations in local contexts.
| S-EPMC6382336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vocal learning and neuronal replacement have been studied extensively in the songbird brain, but until recently, few molecular and genomic tools have been available for this work. Here we describe new molecular/genomic resources for songbird research. We made cDNA libraries from zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) brains at different developmental stages. A total of 11000 clones were sequenced from these libraries, representing 5870 unique gene transcripts. A web-based database has been established for sequence analysis and functional annotations. The cDNA libraries were not normalized. Sequence analysis revealed that a cDNA library made from brains at post-hatching day 30-50, when the song system goes through rapid development and birds learn to sing, shows the highest gene discovery rate. We grouped genes into functional categories according to the Gene Ontology classification and found that expression of the functional categories changed as the brain developed. We also identified five microRNAs whose sequences are highly conserved between zebra finch and other species. We printed cDNA microarrays and profiled gene expression in the HVC of both adult male zebra finches and canaries (Serinus canaria). Statistical Analysis of Microarrays (SAM) was used for data analysis. A subset of the differentially regulated genes was validated by in situ hybridization. The bioinformatic tools EASE and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis were used to identify over-represented functional groups and gene networks among the regulated genes. These resources provide songbird biologists with tools for genome annotation, comparative genomics, and microarray gene expression analysis. Keywords: HVC, songbird, cDNA microarray, gene expression
2006-12-06 | GSE6412 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundWeb-based platforms can be powerful tools for research dissemination. By leveraging the advantages of mass media and interpersonal channels of communication, Web-based dissemination platforms may improve awareness about, and subsequent adoption of, evidence-based practices (EBPs). Digital dissemination strategies can augment traditional dissemination models, improving stakeholder access to digestible and actionable information and promoting translation of EBPs.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the reach and content of the Web presence of a National Institute on Drug Abuse Center of Excellence and how it is used to disseminate research related to digital behavioral health approaches.MethodsThe Center for Technology and Behavioral Health (CTBH) has a website and regularly updated Facebook and Twitter accounts. The website features include summaries of digital behavioral health approaches and related empirical literature, a blog feed focused on the state of the science and technology concerning digital health care approaches, and a newsletter about Center activities. We extracted website usage metrics from Google Analytics and follower counts from social media accounts for the period from March 1, 2013, to July 17, 2018.ResultsSince the implementation of analytic tracking, 70,331 users have initiated 96,995 sessions on the CTBH website. The website includes summaries of 86 digital therapeutic programs, encompassing 447 empirical articles. There are 1160 posts in the CTBH blog feed, including 180 summaries of scholarly articles. The Twitter and Facebook accounts have 577 and 1500 followers, respectively. The newsletter has reached a growing subscriber network and has a high open rate relative to industry standards.ConclusionsThe CTBH Web presence serves as a model for how to leverage accessible and easily updatable digital platforms as research dissemination channels. Digital dissemination tools can augment traditional dissemination strategies to promote awareness about evidence-based digital therapeutic approaches for behavioral health and health care more broadly.
| S-EPMC6473206 | 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: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:Implementation research (IR) focuses on understanding how and why interventions produce their effects in a given context. This often requires engaging a broad array of stakeholders at multiple levels of the health system. Whereas a variety of tools and approaches exist to facilitate stakeholder engagement at the national or institutional level, there is a substantial gap in the IR literature about how best to do this at the local or community level. Similarly, although there is extensive guidance on community engagement within the context of clinical trials-for HIV/AIDS in particular-the same cannot be said for IR. We identified a total of 59 resources by using a combination of online searches of the peer-reviewed and grey literature, as well as crowd-sourcing through the Health Systems Global platform. The authors then completed two rounds of rating the resources to identify the '10 best'. The resources were rated based on considerations of their relevance to IR, existence of an underlying conceptual framework, comprehensiveness of guidance, ease of application, and evidence of successful application in low- or middle-income countries or relevant contexts. These 10 resources can help implementation researchers think strategically and practically about how best to engage community stakeholders to improve the quality, meaningfulness, and application of their results in order to improve health and health systems outcomes. Building on the substantial work that has already been done in the context of clinical trials, there is a need for clearer and more specific guidance on how to incorporate relevant and effective community engagement approaches into IR project planning and implementation.
| S-EPMC5886100 | 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