scholarly journals Mentored training and its association with dissemination and implementation research output: a quasi-experimental evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebekah R Jacob ◽  
Angeline Gacad ◽  
Margaret Padek ◽  
Graham A Colditz ◽  
Karen M Emmons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Research ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Practice Change ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Federal Grant ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research

Abstract Background There is continued need to evaluate training programs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. Scientific products yielded from trainees are an important and objective measure to understand capacity growth within the D&I field. This study evaluates our mentored training program in terms of scientific productivity among applicants.Methods Post-doctoral and early career cancer researchers were recruited and applied to the R25 Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) between 2014 and 2017. Using application details and publicly available bibliometric and funding data, we compared selected fellows with unsuccessful applicants (nonfellows). We extracted Scopus citations and US federal grant funding records for all applicants (N=102). Funding and publication abstracts were de-identified and coded for D&I focus and aggregated to the applicant level for analysis. Logistic regression models were explored separately for the odds of 1) a D&I publication and 2) US federal grant funding post year of application among fellows (N=55) and nonfellows (N=47). Additional models were constructed including independent variables that attenuated the program’s association by 5 percent or more. Only US-based applicants (N=87) were included in grant funding analysis.Results Fellows and nonfellows were similar across several demographic characteristics. Fellows were more than 3 times more likely than nonfellows to have grant funding after MT-DIRC application year (OR 3.2; 95% CI: 1.1-11.0) while controlling for time since application year; the association estimate was 3.1 (95% CI: 0.98-11.0) after adjusting for both cancer research area and previous grant funding. For publications, fellows were almost 4 times more likely to publish D&I focused work adjusting for time (OR 3.8; 95% CI: 1.7-9.0). This association lessened after adjusting for previous D&I publication and years since undergraduate degree (OR 2.9; 95% CI: 1.2-7.5).Conclusions We document the association of a mentored training approach with built-in networks of peers to yield productive D&I researchers. Future evaluation efforts could be expanded to include other terms of longer-term productivity such as policy or practice change as additional objective measures. D&I research trainings in the US and internationally should consider common evaluation measures.

scholarly journals Mentored training and its association with dissemination and implementation research output: a quasi-experimental evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebekah R Jacob ◽  
Angeline Gacad ◽  
Margaret Padek ◽  
Graham A Colditz ◽  
Karen M Emmons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Training Program ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Practice Change ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Federal Grant ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research

Abstract BackgroundThere is continued need to evaluate training programs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. Scientific products yielded from trainees are an important and objective measure to understand capacity growth within the D&I field. This study evaluates our mentored training program in terms of scientific productivity among applicants.MethodsPost-doctoral and early career cancer researchers were recruited and applied to the R25 Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) between 2014 and 2017. Using application details and publicly available bibliometric and funding data, we compared selected fellows with unsuccessful applicants (nonfellows). We extracted Scopus citations and US federal grant funding records for all applicants (N=102). Funding and publication abstracts were de-identified and coded for D&I focus and aggregated to the applicant level for analysis. Logistic regression models were explored separately for the odds of 1) a D&I publication and 2) US federal grant funding post year of application among fellows (N=55) and nonfellows (N=47). Additional models were constructed including independent variables that attenuated the program’s association by 5 percent or more. Only US-based applicants (N=87) were included in grant funding analysis.ResultsFellows and nonfellows were similar across several demographic characteristics. Fellows were more than 3 times more likely than nonfellows to have grant funding after MT-DIRC application year (OR 3.2; 95% CI: 1.1-11.0) while controlling for time since application year; the association estimate was 3.1 (95% CI: 1.0-11.0) after adjusting for both cancer research area and previous grant funding. For publications, fellows were almost 4 times more likely to publish D&I focused work adjusting for time (OR 3.8; 95% CI: 1.7-9.0). This association lessened after adjusting for previous D&I publication and years since undergraduate degree (OR 2.9; 95% CI: 1.2-7.5).ConclusionsWe document the association of a mentored training approach with built-in networks of peers to yield productive D&I researchers. Future evaluation efforts could be expanded to include other terms of longer-term productivity such as policy or practice change as additional objective measures. D&I research trainings in the US and internationally should consider common evaluation measures.Contributions to the literature• The number of trainings in dissemination and implementation (D&I) continues to expand globally. Few D&I training evaluations are published and those evaluations reported tend to be small-scale and short term with limited measures of impact.• This study reports that our training program enhances academic productivity and highlights that mentored training for D&I scholars is an essential approach for building capacity for D&I research.• Using publicly available data, the methods in this study could be replicated with other D&I trainings to compare impact across fields.

scholarly journals A bibliographic review of public health dissemination and implementation research output and citation rates

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 441-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Wolfenden ◽  
Andrew J. Milat ◽  
Christophe Lecathelinais ◽  
Eliza Skelton ◽  
Tara Clinton-McHarg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research

Future Issues in Dissemination and Implementation Research

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross C. Brownson ◽  
Graham A. Colditz ◽  
Enola K. Proctor
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Public Health Services ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research ◽  
The Many

This chapter highlights just a sample of the many rich areas for dissemination and implementation research that will assist us in shortening the gap between discovery and practice, thus beginning to realize the benefits of research for patients, families, and communities. Greater emphasis on implementation in challenging settings, including lower and middle-income countries and underresourced communities in higher income countries will add to the lessons we must learn to fully reap the benefit of our advances in dissemination and implementation research methods. Moreover, collaboration and multidisciplinary approaches to dissemination and implementation research will help to make efforts more consistent and more effective moving forward. Thus, we will be better able to identify knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in future dissemination and implementation research, ultimately informing the practice and policies of clinical care and public health services.

Adaptation in Dissemination and Implementation Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana A. Baumann ◽  
Leopoldo J. Cabassa ◽  
Shannon Wiltsey Stirman
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Implementation Outcomes ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Science ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research

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.

Measurement Issues in Dissemination and Implementation Research

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cara C. Lewis ◽  
Enola K. Proctor ◽  
Ross C. Brownson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Health Care Access ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Measurement Issues ◽  
Care Access ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Science ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation Research ◽  
Access And Quality

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document