143 research outputs found

    Revisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Evidence, in multiple forms, is a foundation of implementation science. For public health and clinical practice, evidence includes the following: type 1 evidence on etiology and burden; type 2 evidence on effectiveness of interventions; and type 3: evidence on dissemination and implementation (D&I) within context. To support a vision for development and use of evidence in D&I science that is more comprehensive and equitable (particularly for type 3 evidence), this article aims to clarify concepts of evidence, summarize ongoing debates about evidence, and provide a set of recommendations and tools/resources for addressing the how-to in filling evidence gaps most critical to advancing implementation science. MAIN TEXT: Because current conceptualizations of evidence have been relatively narrow and insufficiently characterized in our opinion, we identify and discuss challenges and debates about the uses, usefulness, and gaps in evidence for implementation science. A set of questions is proposed to assist in determining when evidence is sufficient for dissemination and implementation. Intersecting gaps include the need to (1) reconsider how the evidence base is determined, (2) improve understanding of contextual effects on implementation, (3) sharpen the focus on health equity in how we approach and build the evidence-base, (4) conduct more policy implementation research and evaluation, and (5) learn from audience and stakeholder perspectives. We offer 15 recommendations to assist in filling these gaps and describe a set of tools for enhancing the evidence most needed in implementation science. CONCLUSIONS: To address our recommendations, we see capacity as a necessary ingredient to shift the field\u27s approach to evidence. Capacity includes the push for implementation science where researchers are trained to develop and evaluate evidence which should be useful and feasible for implementers and reflect community or stakeholder priorities. Equally important, there has been inadequate training and too little emphasis on the pull for implementation science (e.g., training implementers, practice-based research). We suggest that funders and reviewers of research should adopt and support a more robust definition of evidence. By critically examining the evolving nature of evidence, implementation science can better fulfill its vision of facilitating widespread and equitable adoption, delivery, and sustainment of scientific advances

    Dissemination and stakeholder engagement practices among dissemination & implementation scientists: Results from an online survey

    Get PDF
    IntroductionThere has been an increasing focus on disseminating research findings, but less about practices specific to disseminating and engaging non-researchers. The present project sought to describe dissemination practices and engagement of stakeholders among dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists.MethodsMethods to disseminate to and engage non-research stakeholders were assessed using an online survey sent to a broad, diverse sample of D&I scientists.ResultsSurveys were received from 210 participants. The majority of respondents were from university or research settings in the United States. (69%) or Canada (13%), representing a mix of clinical (28%) and community settings (34%). 26% had received formal training in D&I. Respondents indicated routinely engaging in a variety of dissemination-related activities, with academic journal publications (88%), conference presentations (86%), and reports to funders (74%) being the most frequent. Journal publication was identified as the most impactful on respondents' careers (94%), but face-to-face meetings with stakeholders were rated as most impactful on practice or policy (40%). Stakeholder involvement in research was common, with clinical and community-based researchers engaging stakeholder groups in broadly similar ways, but with critical differences noted between researchers with greater seniority, those with more D&I training, those based in the United States vs. Canada, and those in community vs. clinical research settings.ConclusionsThere have been increases in stakeholder engagement, but few other practices since the 2012 survey, and some differences across subgroups. Methods to engage different stakeholders deserve more in-depth investigation. D&I researchers report substantial misalignment of incentives and behaviors related to dissemination to non-research audiences

    Perspectives of scientists on disseminating research findings to non-research audiences

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Little is known about practices used to disseminate findings to non-research, practitioner audiences. This study describes the perspectives, experience and activities of dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists around disseminating their research findings. METHODS: The study explored D&I scientists\u27 experiences and recommendations for assessment of dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Existing list serves were used to recruit scientists. Respondents were asked three open-ended questions on an Internet survey about dissemination activities, recommendations for changing evaluation systems and suggestions to improve their own dissemination of their work. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 159 scientists reporting some training, funding and/or publication history in D&I. Three themes emerged across each of the three open-ended questions. Question 1 on evaluation generated the themes of: 1a) promotional review; 1b) funding requirements and 1c) lack of acknowledgement of dissemination activities. Question 2 on recommended changes generated the themes of: 2a) dissemination as a requirement of the academic promotion process; 2b) requirement of dissemination plan and 2c) dissemination metrics. Question 3 on personal changes to improve dissemination generated the themes of: 3a) allocation of resources for dissemination activities; 3b) emerging dissemination channels and 3c) identify and address issues of priority for stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed different types of issues D&I scientists encounter when disseminating findings to clinical, public health or policy audiences and their suggestions to improve the process. Future research should consider key requirements which determine academic promotion and grant funding as an opportunity to expand dissemination efforts

    The Effects of Patient-Centered Depression Care on Patient Satisfaction and Depression Remission

    Get PDF
    Background: While health systems are striving for patient-centered care, they have little evidence to guide them on how to engage patients in their care, or how this may affect patient experiences and outcomes. Objective: To explore which specific patient-centered aspects of care were best associated with depression improvement and care satisfaction. Methods: Design - observational. Setting - 83 primary care clinics across Minnesota. Subjects - Primary care patients with new prescriptions for antidepressants for depression were recruited from 2007 to 2009. Outcome measures - Patients completed phone surveys regarding demographics and self-rated health status and depression severity at baseline and 6 months. Patient centeredness was assessed via a modified version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. Differences in rates of remission and satisfaction between positive and negative responses for each care process were evaluated using chi-square tests. Results: At 6 months, 37% of 792 patients ages 18–88 achieved depression remission, and 79% rated their care as good-to-excellent. Soliciting patient preferences for care and questions or concerns, providing treatment plans, utilizing depression scales and asking about suicide risk were patient centered measures that were positively associated with depression remission in the unadjusted model; these associations were mildly weakened after adjustment for depression severity and health status. Nearly all measures of patient centeredness were positively associated with care ratings. Conclusion: The patient centeredness of care influences how patients experience and rate their care. This study identified specific actions providers can take to improve patient satisfaction and depression outcomes

    Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The field of implementation science (IS) encompasses a broad range of constructs and uses measures from a variety of disciplines. However, there has been little standardization of measures or agreement on definitions of constructs across different studies, fields, authors, or research groups. METHODS: We describe a collaborative, web-based activity using the United States National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) portal that uses a wiki platform to focus discussion and engage the research community to enhance the quality and harmonization of measures for IS health-related research and practice. We present the history, process, and preliminary data from the GEM Dissemination & Implementation (D&I) Campaign on IS measurement. RESULTS: The GEM D&I Campaign has been ongoing for eight weeks as of this writing, and has used a combination of expert opinion and crowd-sourcing approaches. To date it has listed definitions for 45 constructs and summarized information on 120 measures. Usage of the website peaked at a rate of 124 views from 89 visitors on week seven. Users from seven countries have contributed measures and/or constructs, shared experience in using different measures, contributed comments, and identified research gaps and needs. CONCLUSION: Thus far, this campaign has provided information about different IS measures, their associated characteristics, and comments. The next step is to rate these measures for quality and practicality. This resource and ongoing activity have potential to advance the quality and harmonization of IS measures and constructs, and we invite readers to contribute to the process