A content analysis of dissemination and implementation science resource initiatives: what types of resources do they offer to advance the field?

BackgroundThe recent growth in organized efforts to advance dissemination and implementation (D & I) science suggests a rapidly expanding community focused on the adoption and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Although promising for the D & I of EBPs, the proliferation of initiatives is difficult for any one individual to navigate and summarize. Such proliferation may also result in redundant efforts or missed opportunities for participation and advancement. A review of existing D & I science resource initiatives and their unique merits would be a significant step for the field. The present study aimed to describe the global landscape of these organized efforts to advance D & I science.MethodsWe conducted a content analysis between October 2015 and March 2016 to examine resources and characteristics of D & I science resource initiatives using public, web-based information. Included resource initiatives must have engaged in multiple efforts to advance D & I science beyond conferences, offered D & I science resources, and provided content in English. The sampling method included an Internet search using D & I terms and inquiry among internationally representative D & I science experts. Using a coding scheme based on a priori and grounded approaches, two authors consensus coded website information including interactive and non-interactive resources and information regarding accessibility (membership, cost, competitive application, and location).ResultsThe vast majority (83%) of resource initiatives offered at least one of seven interactive resources (consultation/technical assistance, mentorship, workshops, workgroups, networking, conferences, and social media) and one of six non-interactive resources (resource library, news and updates from the field, archived talks or slides, links pages, grant writing resources, and funding opportunities). Non-interactive resources were most common, with some appearing frequently across resource initiatives (e.g., news and updates from the field).ConclusionFindings generated by this study offer insight into what types of D & I science resources exist and what new resources may have the greatest potential to make a unique and needed contribution to the field. Additional interactive resources may benefit the field, particularly mentorship opportunities and resources that can be accessed virtually. Moving forward, it may be useful to consider strategic attention to the core tenets of D & I science put forth by Glasgow and colleagues to most efficiently and effectively advance the field.

[1]  J. Denis,et al.  How research funding agencies support science integration into policy and practice: An international overview , 2014, Implementation Science.

[2]  John R. Weisz,et al.  Odd Couple? Reenvisioning the Relation Between Science and Practice in the Dissemination-Implementation Era , 2014 .

[3]  Dominic Pasura,et al.  The RE-AIM framework , 2011 .

[4]  Mark L. Poteet,et al.  Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégeé: a meta-analysis. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[5]  Huei Huang Kuan,et al.  Comparing the Effects of Usability on Customer Conversion and Retention at E-Commerce Websites , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[6]  David A. Chambers,et al.  Research and services partnerships: partnership: a fundamental component of dissemination and implementation research. , 2013, Psychiatric Services.

[7]  S. Straus,et al.  Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? , 2006, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[8]  Katy Börner,et al.  A Multi-Level Systems Perspective for the Science of Team Science , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[9]  Bern Shen,et al.  Toward cross-sectoral team science. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[10]  David A. Chambers,et al.  National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. , 2012, American journal of public health.

[11]  Kimberly A. Neuendorf,et al.  The Content Analysis Guidebook , 2001 .

[12]  John B. Pearl,et al.  The Power of Cluster Evaluation Networking Conferences. , 1993 .

[13]  Whitney Berta,et al.  Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review , 2015, Implementation Science.

[14]  Victoria L. Crittenden,et al.  We're all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem , 2011 .

[15]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science , 2016, Implementation Science.

[16]  Catherine M. Jannik,et al.  Redesigning for usability: Information architecture and usability testing for Georgia Tech Library's website , 2005, OCLC Syst. Serv..

[17]  Brigid R. Marriott,et al.  A methodology for enhancing implementation science proposals: comparison of face-to-face versus virtual workshops , 2015, Implementation Science.

[18]  Ross C Brownson,et al.  A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. , 2008, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[19]  José Esparza,et al.  The discovery value of “Big Science” , 2007, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[20]  Noshir Contractor,et al.  Mapping the growing discipline of dissemination and implementation science in health , 2017, Scientometrics.

[21]  David A. Chambers,et al.  Implementation Research in Mental Health Services: an Emerging Science with Conceptual, Methodological, and Training challenges , 2008, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.

[22]  E. Balas,et al.  Managing Clinical Knowledge for Health Care Improvement , 2000, Yearbook of Medical Informatics.

[23]  Ross C Brownson,et al.  Individual and setting level predictors of the implementation of a skin cancer prevention program: a multilevel analysis , 2010, Implementation science : IS.

[24]  Dimitrios Buhalis,et al.  Progress in tourism management : a review of website evaluation in tourism research , 2010 .

[25]  Richard Van Noorden Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network , 2014, Nature.

[26]  Douglas A. Luke,et al.  Forging a link between mentoring and collaboration: a new training model for implementation science , 2016, Implementation Science.

[27]  David A Chambers,et al.  Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. , 2012, American journal of preventive medicine.

[28]  Alistair G. Sutcliffe Heuristic Evaluation of Website Attractiveness and Usability , 2001, DSV-IS.

[29]  R. Glasgow,et al.  Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. , 2003, American journal of public health.

[30]  J. Lowery,et al.  Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science , 2009, Implementation science : IS.

[31]  Dsv-Is,et al.  Interactive systems : design, specification, and verification : 8th International Workshop, DSV-IS 2001, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, June 13-15, 2001 : revised papers , 2001 .

[32]  M. Eccles,et al.  Welcome to Implementation Science , 2006, Implementation Science.

[33]  R. Glasgow,et al.  Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. , 1999, American journal of public health.