Evaluation Approaches for Dissemination and Implementation Research

Author(s):  
Bridget Gaglio ◽  
Russell E. Glasgow

Considerable progress has been made in evaluation of dissemination and implementation science and research; however, we are still lacking knowledge in several key areas. The complex, inherently multilevel and contextual nature of dissemination and implementation science, and the always (sometimes rapidly) changing environment, present ongoing challenges. Given these challenges, evaluation of dissemination and implementation efforts need more adapted, novel, refined and sophisticated approaches to evaluation and especially, more pragmatic measures. To advance our present state of science, the question that we need to ask (and be able to answer) is “What are the characteristics of interventions that can reach large numbers of people, especially those who can most benefit, be adopted broadly by different settings, be consistently implemented by different staff members with moderate levels of training and expertise, and produce replicable and long-lasting effects (and minimal negative impact) at a reasonable cost?”

Author(s):  
Ana A. Baumann ◽  
Leopoldo J. Cabassa ◽  
Shannon Wiltsey Stirman

This chapter focuses on adaptations in the context of dissemination and implementation research and practice. Consistent with the existing literature, the authors recommend that adaptations be proactively and iteratively determined, strongly informed by a variety of stakeholders, and that efforts be made to carefully describe and document the nature of the adaptations and evaluate their impact on desired service, health, and implementation outcomes. While this chapter focuses on adaptations to interventions and the context of practice, the authors also note that adaptations may need to be made to implementation strategies. Following the call by Proctor and colleagues for further precision in defining and operationalizing implementation strategies, and based on evidence that scholars are not necessarily reporting what and how they are adapting the interventions, scholars are urged to define and evaluate the adaptations they are making not only to the interventions and context of practice but also to the implementation strategies.


Author(s):  
Cara C. Lewis ◽  
Enola K. Proctor ◽  
Ross C. Brownson

The National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the CDC, and a number of private foundations have expressed the need for advancing the science of dissemination and implementation. Interest in dissemination and implementation research is present in many countries. Improving health care requires not only effective programs and interventions, but also effective strategies to move them into community based settings of care. But before discrete strategies can be tested for effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, or cost effectiveness, context and outcome constructs must be identified and defined in such a way that enables their manipulation and measurement. Measurement is underdeveloped, with few psychometrically strong measures and very little attention paid to their pragmatic nature. A variety of tools are needed to capture health care access and quality, and no measurement issues are more pressing than those for dissemination and implementation science.


Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 126 (S10) ◽  
pp. 2394-2404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne F. Rositch ◽  
Karla Unger‐Saldaña ◽  
Rebecca J. DeBoer ◽  
Anne Ng’ang’a ◽  
Bryan J. Weiner

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. S322-S329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel G. Tabak ◽  
Margaret M. Padek ◽  
Jon F. Kerner ◽  
Kurt C. Stange ◽  
Enola K. Proctor ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 1367-1390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wynne E. Norton ◽  
Alina Lungeanu ◽  
David A. Chambers ◽  
Noshir Contractor

2021 ◽  
pp. 101620
Author(s):  
Chelsey R. Schlechter ◽  
Guilherme Del Fiol ◽  
Cho Y. Lam ◽  
Maria E. Fernandez ◽  
Tom Greene ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 188-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rowena J. Dolor ◽  
Enola Proctor ◽  
Kathleen R. Stevens ◽  
Leslie R. Boone ◽  
Paul Meissner ◽  
...  

AbstractIntroduction:Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is not a formal element of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program, and D&I science activities across the CTSA Consortium are largely unknown.Methods:The CTSA Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Translation Working Group surveyed CTSA leaders to explore D&I science-related activities, barriers, and needed supports, then conducted univariate and qualitative analyses of the data.Results:Out of 67 CTSA leaders, 55.2% responded. CTSAs reported directly funding D&I programs (54.1%), training (51.4%), and projects (59.5%). Indirect support (e.g., promoted by CTSA without direct funding) for D&I activities was higher – programs (70.3%), training (64.9%), and projects (54.1%). Top barriers included funding (39.4%), limited D&I science faculty (30.3%), and lack of D&I science understanding (27.3%). Respondents (63.4%) noted the importance of D&I training and recommended coordination of D&I activities across CTSAs hubs (33.3%).Conclusion:These findings should guide CTSA leadership in efforts to raise awareness and advance the role of D&I science in improving population health.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document