Does dissemination extend beyond publication: a survey of a cross section of public funded research in the UK

Background: In the UK, most funding bodies now expect a commitment or effort on the part of grant holders to disseminate the findings of their research. The emphasis is on ensuring that publicly funded research is made available, can be used to support decision making, and ultimately improve the quality and delivery of healthcare provided. In this study, we aimed to describe the dissemination practices and impacts of applied and public health researchers working across the UK.Methods: We conducted a survey of 485 UK-based principal investigators of publicly funded applied and public health research. Participants were contacted by email and invited to complete an online questionnaire via an embedded URL. Gift vouchers were given to all participants who completed the questionnaire. Four reminder emails were sent out to non-respondents at one, two, three, and four weeks; a fifth postal reminder was also undertaken.Results: A total of 243/485 (50%) questionnaires were returned (232 completed, 11 declining to participate). Most researchers recognise the importance of and appear committed to research dissemination. However, most dissemination activity beyond the publishing of academic papers appears to be undertaken an ad hoc fashion. There is some evidence that access to dissemination advice and support may facilitate more policy interactions; though access to such resources is lacking at an institutional level, and advice from funders can be variable. Although a minority of respondents routinely record details about the impact of their research, when asked about impact in relation to specific research projects most were able to provide simple narrative descriptions.Conclusions: Researchers recognise the importance of and appear committed to disseminating the findings of their work. Although researchers are focussed on academic publication, a range of dissemination activities are being applied albeit in an ad hoc fashion. However, what constitutes effective dissemination (in terms of impact and return on investment) remains unclear. Researchers need greater and clearer guidance on how best to plan, resource, and facilitate their dissemination activities

Translating research into practice in Leeds and Bradford (TRiPLaB): a protocol for a programme of research

Background The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has funded nine Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). Each CLAHRC is a partnership between higher education institutions (HEIs) and the NHS in nine UK regional health economies. The CLAHRC for Leeds, York, and Bradford comprises two 'research themes' and three 'implementation themes.' One of these implementation themes is Translating Research into Practice in Leeds and Bradford (TRiPLaB). TRiPLaB aims to develop, implement, and evaluate methods for inducing and sustaining the uptake of research knowledge into practice in order to improve the quality of health services for the people of Leeds and Bradford. Methods TRiPLaB is built around a three-stage, sequential, approach using separate, longitudinal case studies conducted with collaborating NHS organisations, TRiPLaB will select robust innovations to implement, conduct a theory-informed exploration of the local context using a variety of data collection and analytic methods, and synthesise the information collected to identify the key factors influencing the uptake and adoption of targeted innovations. This synthesis will inform the development of tailored, multifaceted, interventions designed to increase the translation of research findings into practice. Mixed research methods, including time series analysis, quasi-experimental comparison, and qualitative process evaluation, will be used to evaluate the impact of the implementation strategies deployed. Conclusion TRiPLaB is a theory-informed, systematic, mixed methods approach to developing and evaluating tailored implementation strategies aimed at increasing the translation of research-based findings into practice in one UK health economy. Through active collaboration with its local NHS, TRiPLaB aims to improve the quality of health services for the people of Leeds and Bradford and to contribute to research knowledge regarding the interaction between context and adoption behaviour in health services

Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks

Background: Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally. However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.Methods: We searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.Results: Thirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.Conclusions: There are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination

Control of Flowering and Cell Fate by LIF2, an RNA Binding Partner of the Polycomb Complex Component LHP1

Polycomb Repressive Complexes (PRC) modulate the epigenetic status of key cell fate and developmental regulators in eukaryotes. The chromo domain protein LIKE HETEROCHROMATIN PROTEIN1 (LHP1) is a subunit of a plant PRC1-like complex in Arabidopsis thaliana and recognizes histone H3 lysine 27 trimethylation, a silencing epigenetic mark deposited by the PRC2 complex. We have identified and studied an LHP1-Interacting Factor2 (LIF2). LIF2 protein has RNA recognition motifs and belongs to the large hnRNP protein family, which is involved in RNA processing. LIF2 interacts in vivo, in the cell nucleus, with the LHP1 chromo shadow domain. Expression of LIF2 was detected predominantly in vascular and meristematic tissues. Loss-of-function of LIF2 modifies flowering time, floral developmental homeostasis and gynoecium growth determination. lif2 ovaries have indeterminate growth and produce ectopic inflorescences with severely affected flowers showing proliferation of ectopic stigmatic papillae and ovules in short-day conditions. To look at how LIF2 acts relative to LHP1, we conducted transcriptome analyses in lif2 and lhp1 and identified a common set of deregulated genes, which showed significant enrichment in stress-response genes. By comparing expression of LHP1 targets in lif2, lhp1 and lif2 lhp1 mutants we showed that LIF2 can either antagonize or act with LHP1. Interestingly, repression of the FLC floral transcriptional regulator in lif2 mutant is accompanied by an increase in H3K27 trimethylation at the locus, without any change in LHP1 binding, suggesting that LHP1 is targeted independently from LIF2 and that LHP1 binding does not strictly correlate with gene expression. LIF2, involved in cell identity and cell fate decision, may modulate the activity of LHP1 at specific loci, during specific developmental windows or in response to environmental cues that control cell fate determination. These results highlight a novel link between plant RNA processing and Polycomb regulation