Research and Research Training in Social Work: Climate, Connections, and Competencies

The University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history.Proctor, Enola, Ph.D., Professor, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis, MO - "Keynote Address: Research and Research Training in Social Work: Climate, Connections, and Competencies"The Ohio State University College of Social Wor

Social Work Research and the Quest for Effective Practice

The University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history.Keynote speaker: Dr. Enola K. Proctor, Frank J. Bruno Professor of Social Work Research, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University - "Social Work Research and the Quest for Effective Practice"The Ohio State University College of Social Wor

Student Racial Atitudes and Perceptions of Causal Events at Entry to Graduate Social Work Education

This study assessed the racial attitudes and perceptions of causal events of 174 graduate students at the time of their entry to social work training. Results indicate that social work students had more egalitarian attitudes than nonsocial work students and were more likely to attribute causality to environmental or external factors. black students were significantly more external than white students in tneir perceptions of causality. Some differences in racial attitudes and perceptions of causal events were found among social work students, depending upon area of practice specialization. Student attitudes and perceptions did not differ according to geographical regions. implications for social work education and for future research are discussed

Letting Go: Conceptualizing intervention de-implementation in public health and social service settings

The discontinuation of interventions that should be stopped, or de-implementation, has emerged as a novel line of inquiry within dissemination and implementation science. As this area grows in human services research, like public health and social work, theory is needed to help guide scientific endeavors. Given the infancy of de-implementation, this conceptual narrative provides a definition and criteria for determining if an intervention should be de-implemented. We identify three criteria for identifying interventions appropriate for de-implementation: (a) interventions that are not effective or harmful, (b) interventions that are not the most effective or efficient to provide, and (c) interventions that are no longer necessary. Detailed, well-documented examples illustrate each of the criteria. We describe de-implementation frameworks, but also demonstrate how other existing implementation frameworks might be applied to de-implementation research as a supplement. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of de-implementation in the context of other stages of implementation, like sustainability and adoption; next steps for de-implementation research, especially identifying interventions appropriate for de-implementation in a systematic manner; and highlight special ethical considerations to advance the field of de-implementation research

Building capacity for dissemination and implementation research: One university’s experience

Abstract Background While 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. Activities An 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. Conclusion Our 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

Systems intervention to promote colon cancer screening in safety net settings: Protocol for a community-based participatory randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality. Screening can be effective but is underutilized. System- or multi-level interventions could be effective at increasing screening, but most have been implemented and evaluated in higher-resource settings such as health maintenance organizations. Given the disparities evident for colorectal cancer and the potential for screening to improve outcomes, there is a need to expand this work to include diverse settings, including those who treat economically disadvantaged patients. This paper describes the study protocol for a trial designed to increase colorectal cancer screening in those ‘safety-net’ health centers that serve underinsured and uninsured patients. This trial was designed and is being implemented using a community-based participatory approach. METHODS/DESIGN: We developed a practical clinical cluster-randomized controlled trial. We will recruit 16 community health centers to this trial. This systems-level intervention consists of a menu of evidence-based implementation strategies for increasing colorectal cancer screening. Health centers in the intervention arm then collaborate with the study team to tailor strategies to their own setting in order to maximize fit and acceptability. Data are collected at the organizational level through interviews, and at the provider and patient levels through surveys. Patients complete a survey about their healthcare and screening utilization at baseline, six months, and twelve months. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is colorectal cancer screening by patient self-report, supplemented by a chart-audit in a subsample of patients. Implementation outcomes informed by the Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) conceptual framework will be measured at patient, provider, and practice levels. DISCUSSION: Our study is one of the first to integrate community participatory strategies to a randomized controlled trial in a healthcare setting. The multi-level approach will support the ability of the intervention to affect screening through multiple avenues. The participatory approach will strengthen the chance that implementation strategies will be maintained after study completion and, supports external validity by increasing health center interest and willingness to participate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT0129949

Developing educational competencies for dissemination and implementation research training programs: An exploratory analysis using card sorts

Abstract Background With demand increasing for dissemination and implementation (D&I) training programs in the USA and other countries, more structured, competency-based, and tested curricula are needed to guide training programs. There are many benefits to the use of competencies in practice-based education such as the establishment of rigorous standards as well as providing an additional metrics for development and growth. As the first aim of a D&I training grant, an exploratory study was conducted to establish a new set of D&I competencies to guide training in D&I research. Methods Based upon existing D&I training literature, the leadership team compiled an initial list of competencies. The research team then engaged 16 additional colleagues in the area of D&I science to provide suggestions to the initial list. The competency list was then additionally narrowed to 43 unique competencies following feedback elicited from these D&I researchers. Three hundred additional D&I researchers were then invited via email to complete a card sort in which the list of competencies were sorted into three categories of experience levels. Participants had previous first-hand experience with D&I or knowledge translation training programs in the past. Participants reported their self-identified D&I expertise level as well as the country in which their home institution is located. A mean score was calculated for each competency based on their experience level categorization. From these mean scores, beginner-, intermediate-, and advanced-level tertiles were created for the competencies. Results The card sort request achieved a 41 % response rate (n = 124). The list of 43 competencies was organized into four broad domains and sorted based on their experience level score. Eleven competencies were classified into the “Beginner” category, 27 into “Intermediate,” and 5 into “Advanced.” Conclusions Education and training developers can use this competency list to formalize future trainings in D&I research, create more evidence-informed curricula, and enable overall capacity building and accompanying metrics in the field of D&I training and research.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/113065/1/13012_2015_Article_304.pd