Research Dissemination Strategies Research Articles

Network analysis of the social media activities around the #TeleCheckAF project.

TeleCheck-AF is a novel remote on-demand mobile health infrastructure around teleconsultations for patients with atrial fibrillation. Social media (SoMe) communication on Twitter contributed to the dissemination of this healthcare innovation by using the hashtag #TeleCheckAF. This study aims to analyse the SoMe network behind #TeleCheckAF and determine the key opinion leaders. Publicly available data on actors and interactions around the hashtag #TeleCheckAF were collected by web scraping from the platform Twitter. With tools based on social network analysis, a social network was created, different communities were identified, and key opinion leaders were determined by their centrality in the network. The SoMe network consisted of 413 086 accounts with 636 502 ties in 22 different communities. A total of 287 accounts that diffused information and/or used the TeleCheck-AF infrastructure were analysed in depth. Those accounts involved users from >15 different countries and multidisciplinary professions. Further, 20 opinion leaders were identified, including four official accounts of societies and associated journals among key opinion leaders. Peaks in #TeleCheckAF tweets were seen after (virtual) conferences and other activities involving national and international cardiology societies. Social network analysis of the TeleCheck-AF Twitter hashtag revealed a wide, multidisciplinary potential reach for the diffusion of a healthcare innovation. Official society SoMe accounts can amplify the dissemination of research findings by featuring abstract presentations during conferences and published manuscripts. This underlines the synergistic effects between traditional and SoMe-based research dissemination strategies for novel healthcare approaches, such as the TeleCheck-AF project.

From trials to communities: implementation and scale-up of health behaviour interventions

BackgroundTo maximise their potential benefits to communities, effective health behaviour interventions need to be implemented, ideally ‘at scale’, and are often adapted as part of this. To inform future implementation and scale-up efforts, this study broadly sought to understand (i) how often health behaviour interventions are implemented in communities, (ii) the adaptations that occur; (iii) how frequency it occurred ‘at scale’; and (iv) factors associated with ‘scale-up’.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted of corresponding authors of trials (randomised or non-randomised) assessing the effects of preventive health behaviour interventions. Included studies of relevant Cochrane reviews served as a sampling frame. Participants were asked to report on the implementation and scale-up (defined as investment in large scale delivery by a (non)government organisation) of their intervention in the community following trial completion, adaptations made, and any research dissemination strategies employed. Information was extracted from published reports of the trial including assessments of effectiveness and risk of bias.ResultsAuthors of 104 trials completed the survey. Almost half of the interventions were implemented following trial completion (taking on average 19 months), and 54% of those were adapted prior to doing so. The most common adaptations were adding intervention components, and adapting the intervention to fit within the local service setting. Scale-up occurred in 33% of all interventions. There were no significant associations between research trial characteristics such as intervention effectiveness, risk of bias, setting, involvement of end-user, and incidence of scale-up. However the number of research dissemination strategies was positively associated to the odds of an intervention being scaled-up (OR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.88; p < 0.001).ConclusionsAdaptation of implemented trials is often undertaken. Most health behaviour interventions are not implemented or scaled-up following trial completion. The use of a greater number of dissemination strategies may increase the likelihood of scaled up.

Improving academic and public health impact of Cochrane public health reviews: what can we learn from bibliographic metrics and author dissemination strategies? A cross-sectional study.

To facilitate the development of impactful research dissemination strategies, this study aimed to: (i) survey authors of trials included in a sample of Cochrane reviews to describe strategies to disseminate trial findings, and examine their association with academic and policy impacts and (ii) audit academic and policy impact of CPH reviews. Authors of 104 trials within identified Cochrane reviews completed survey items assessing the dissemination strategies. Field weighted citation (FWCI) data extracted from bibliographic databases served as a measure of academic impact of trials and CPH reviews. Policy and practice impacts of trials were assessed during the survey of trial authors using items based on the Payback Framework, and for CPH reviews using 'policy mention' data collected via Altmetric Explorer. Among the included trials, univariate (but not multivariable) regression models revealed significant associations between the use of dissemination strategies (i.e. posts on social media; workshops with end-users; media-releases) and policy or practice impacts. No significant associations were reported between dissemination strategies and trial FWCI. The mean FWCI of CPH reviews suggest that they are cited 220% more than other reviews in their field. Comprehensive dissemination strategies are likely required to maximize the potential the potential impacts of public health research.

The Recruitment to Dissemination Continuum in Community-based Participatory Research

The Recruitment to Dissemination Continuum in Community-based Participatory Research Ahmed A. Mohamed, MD, Jennifer L. Ridgeway, PhD, Jane W. Njeru, MB, ChB, Luz E. Molina, Yahye A. Ahmed, Miriam Goodson, MS, Ahmed Osman, Graciela D. Porraz Capetillo, Omar Nur, Irene G. Sia, MD, MSc, and Mark L. Wieland, MD, MPH What Is the Purpose of This Study? • This study analyzes the link between the recruitment and dissemination processes of a community-engaged research study. What Is the Problem? • Findings in community-engaged research studies are almost always shared in scientific articles but only sometimes shared with communities who participate in the studies. • Sharing the results of research studies with communities can have positive effects including encouraging people to participate in future studies, but little is known about the link between dissemination of research findings and future recruitment. What Are the Findings? • This study demonstrated the ways in which recruitment of marginalized populations to research studies and dissemination of study results can manifest as a continuum. • This study shows that trust, relationship building, and capacity building are key features for successful participant recruitment and research dissemination strategies. • Strategies, resources, and relationships used or developed during the recruitment phase of research are directly applied to planning dissemination of results with community partners. • Participants and members of their communities were more likely to participate in future research studies as a result of attending a dissemination event. Who Should Care Most? • Community organizations involved in research partnerships. • Researchers engaged in community-based participatory research. Recommendations for Action • Community academic partnerships should consider building an intentional recruitment to dissemination continuum for their longitudinal work together. [End Page e3] • For successful recruitment and dissemination strategies, community partners and researchers should foster trust and capacity through long-term partnerships. • Dissemination of research findings are encouraged in order to bring attention to health issues that are important for the participating community. Disseminating research findings directly to participants and their communities encourages participation in future research. [End Page e4] Ahmed A. Mohamed Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Jennifer L. Ridgeway Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Jane W. Njeru Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Luz E. Molina Language Services, Mayo Clinic Yahye A. Ahmed Somali American Social Service Association Miriam Goodson Alliance of Chicanos, Hispanics, and Latin Americans Ahmed Osman Somali American Social Service Association Intercultural Mutual Assistance Association, Rochester Graciela D. Porraz Capetillo Language Services, Mayo Clinic Alliance of Chicanos, Hispanics, and Latin Americans Omar Nur Somali American Social Service Association Irene G. Sia Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Mark L. Wieland Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Copyright © 2022 Johns Hopkins University Press

Research Dissemination Strategies Used by Kenya Medical Research Institute Scientists

Background: Dissemination of research findings is acknowledged as an important component of any research process. Implementation of research findings into practice or policy is necessary for improving outcomes in the targeted community. Given the context and dynamic environment in which researchers operate, there is need to find out existing gaps in terms of disseminating research findings to key stakeholders. The objective of this study was to investigate the health research dissemination strategies used by Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) researchers. Methods: This was a mixed-method study employing concurrent sequence (use of both qualitative and quantitative) methods of data collection. The study was conducted in KEMRI’s 10 centres spread in 3 geographical areas: Kisumu, Kilifi, and Nairobi counties. Potential respondents were identified through purposive sampling. Three inter-related data collection methods were employed in this study. These methods included key informant interviews with: (a) MoH officials from county government; (b) KEMRI researchers; and (c) key KEMRI departments, namely Corporate Affairs and the library. Additionally, secondary sources of information, such as scientific reports, KEMRI annual reports, and financial statements, were also reviewed. Results: Publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals was mentioned as the most common method of dissemination of research findings. Scientists published in 353 peer-reviewed journals (or publishing houses) between the years 2002 and 2015. Over 92.7% of these publications were in international peer-reviewed journals. Conferences and workshops were also mentioned. In the absence of a centralised electronic KEMRI publication database, the research team extracted and collated a publication lists from KEMRI annual reports and financial statements. This was limiting since it did not have an exhaustive list of all publications by KEMRI scientists. Only 3 respondents mentioned having written policy briefs or engaged the media as part of dissemination channels. The media representatives cited the use of social media (Facebook and Twitter) as another channel that KEMRI scientists could exploit. Challenges in dissemination included lack of knowledge on research translation leading to poor synthesis of research outputs as well as selective reporting by the media. Conclusion: Publications in peer-reviewed journals was the most preferred channel of communicating scientific outputs. Conferences and writing of policy briefs were the other sources of dissemination. We recommend that KEMRI dissemination channels should go well beyond simply making research available through the traditional vehicles of journal publications and scientific conference presentations but establish institutional mechanism which would facilitate extracting the main messages or key implications derived from research results and communicating them to stakeholders in attractive ways that would encourage them to factor the research implications into their work.

Research Dissemination Strategies Used by Kenya Medical Research Institute Scientists.

Background:Dissemination of research findings is acknowledged as an important component of any research process. Implementation of research findings into practice or policy is necessary for improving outcomes in the targeted community. Given the context and dynamic environment in which researchers operate, there is need to find out existing gaps in terms of disseminating research findings to key stakeholders. The objective of this study was to investigate the health research dissemination strategies used by Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) researchers.Methods:This was a mixed-method study employing concurrent sequence (use of both qualitative and quantitative) methods of data collection. The study was conducted in KEMRI's 10 centres spread in 3 geographical areas: Kisumu, Kilifi, and Nairobi counties. Potential respondents were identified through purposive sampling. Three inter-related data collection methods were employed in this study. These methods included key informant interviews with: (a) MoH officials from county government; (b) KEMRI researchers; and (c) key KEMRI departments, namely Corporate Affairs and the library. Additionally, secondary sources of information, such as scientific reports, KEMRI annual reports, and financial statements, were also reviewed.Results:Publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals was mentioned as the most common method of dissemination of research findings. Scientists published in 353 peer-reviewed journals (or publishing houses) between the years 2002 and 2015. Over 92.7% of these publications were in international peer-reviewed journals. Conferences and workshops were also mentioned. In the absence of a centralised electronic KEMRI publication database, the research team extracted and collated a publication lists from KEMRI annual reports and financial statements. This was limiting since it did not have an exhaustive list of all publications by KEMRI scientists. Only 3 respondents mentioned having written policy briefs or engaged the media as part of dissemination channels. The media representatives cited the use of social media (Facebook and Twitter) as another channel that KEMRI scientists could exploit. Challenges in dissemination included lack of knowledge on research translation leading to poor synthesis of research outputs as well as selective reporting by the media.Conclusion:Publications in peer-reviewed journals was the most preferred channel of communicating scientific outputs. Conferences and writing of policy briefs were the other sources of dissemination. We recommend that KEMRI dissemination channels should go well beyond simply making research available through the traditional vehicles of journal publications and scientific conference presentations but establish institutional mechanism which would facilitate extracting the main messages or key implications derived from research results and communicating them to stakeholders in attractive ways that would encourage them to factor the research implications into their work.

Twitter use at the 2016 Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: analyzing #DIScience16

BackgroundPoor dissemination of research findings may hamper the reach and impact of scientific discoveries. One key emerging platform for research dissemination is social media, including Twitter. While Twitter and other social media are increasingly being used to disseminate research content presented during scientific conferences, few studies have investigated the extent to which these tools are used throughout conferences and how they are being used. The aim for this study was to better understand the use of Twitter during the 2016 Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health (D&I conference).MethodsWe performed an analysis of Twitter use before, during, and after the 2016 D&I conference, which took place from December 14 to 15. All tweets (posted between December 1 and 31) that included the conference-specific hashtag (#DIScience16) were assessed. We identified 2639 tweets using the data analytics platform NUVI. We used NUVI software to generate statistics about reach, influence, mentions, and origin of the tweets. Individual tweet content was also assessed using DiscoverText and coded for disease category, implementation outcomes discussed, category of tweet, and conference track.ResultsA total of 2639 tweets were analyzed; 89.1% of the tweets were posted during the conference. A total of 389 unique users participated on Twitter, representing 31 states and 22 locations outside of the USA. Most (56.8%) tweets were re-tweets and were used for scientific promotion (50.6%). Key conference speakers and implementation outcomes (de-implementation, adaptation, and fidelity) were commonly discussed.ConclusionsOur findings reveal that Twitter was used as a platform during the D&I conference, both to facilitate conference discussion and to promote scientific ideas. This work contributes to the existing data analytics and implementation science literature in two major ways: (1) by advancing knowledge of how social media is used during annual academic conferences and (2) by providing a deeper understanding of themes and emerging areas of interest in the dissemination and implementation sciences. Knowing specific topics of interest can help planners and scientists better understand the landscape of current and future implementation research and encourage new research dissemination strategies.

The #AustralianBeachspace Project: Examining Opportunities for Research Dissemination Using Instagram

The #AustralianBeachspace Project: Examining Opportunities for Research Dissemination Using Instagram

Pathways to research impact in primary healthcare: What do Australian primary healthcare researchers believe works best to facilitate the use of their research findings?

BackgroundPrimary healthcare researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate measurable and lasting improvement in clinical practice and healthcare policy as a result of their work. It is therefore important to understand the effectiveness of the research dissemination strategies used. The aim of this paper is to describe the pathways for research impact that have been achieved across several government-funded primary healthcare projects, and the effectiveness of these methods as perceived by their Chief Investigators.MethodsThe project used an online survey to collect information about government-funded primary healthcare research projects. Chief Investigators were asked how they disseminated their findings and how this achieved impact in policy and practice. They were also asked to express their beliefs regarding the most effective means of achieving research impact and describe how this occurred.ResultsChief Investigators of 17 projects indicated that a number of dissemination strategies were used but that professional networks were the most effective means of promoting uptake of their research findings. Utilisation of research findings for clinical practice was most likely to occur in organisations or among individual practitioners who were most closely associated with the research team, or when research findings were included in educational programmes involving clinical practice. Uptake of both policy- and practice-related research was deemed most successful if intermediary organisations such as formal professional networks were engaged in the research. Successful primary healthcare researchers had developed critical relationships with intermediary organisations within primary healthcare before the initiation of the research and had also involved them in the design. The scale of research impact was influenced by the current policy environment, the type and significance of the results, and the endorsement (or lack thereof) of professional bodies.ConclusionsChief Investigators believed that networks were the most effective means of research dissemination. Researchers who were embedded in professional, clinical or policy-focussed intermediary organisations, or had developed partnerships with clinical services, which had a vested interest in the research findings, were more able to describe a direct impact of their research. This suggests that development of these relationships and engagement of these stakeholders by primary healthcare researchers is a vital step for optimal research utilisation in the primary healthcare setting.

A picture is worth a thousand data points: Exploring visualizations as tools for connecting the public to climate change research

Data visualizations can serve as an integral component of online climate change research dissemination strategies, as they are effective and efficient ways for attracting diverse public audiences and delivering research information in a timely fashion. However, these visualizations can be highly varied in terms of form and ways of interaction, and this raises questions about the particular qualities of such media that influence their ability to connect with and inform diverse audiences. This study addresses these questions by building visualizations of secondary energy production and consumption trends in Canada and evaluating their impact through focus group methodology. Two visualizations were built that held contrasting features: an abstract, static visualization built in the form of a time-series graph and a dynamic, interactive visualization with a ‘picturesque’ design. The results indicate that the interactive visualization held higher potential for drawing in and maintaining audience interests, whereas the static visualization was more useful for users wishing to gain a more detailed understanding of the data. These findings suggest that both types of visualizations have complementary strengths, and collaboration between trans-disciplinary research teams and graphic artists can lead to visualizations that attract diverse audiences and facilitate different information needs and access.

Uses of Research Evidence by State Legislators Who Prioritize Behavioral Health Issues.

Disseminating behavioral health (BH) research to elected policy makers is a priority, but little is known about how they use and seek research evidence. This exploratory study aimed to identify research dissemination preferences and research-seeking practices of legislators who prioritize BH issues and to describe the role of research in determining policy priorities. The study also assessed whether these legislators differ from those who do not prioritize BH issues. A telephone-based survey was conducted with 862 state legislators (response rate, 46%). A validated survey instrument assessed priorities and the factors that determined them, research dissemination preferences, and research-seeking practices. Bivariate analyses were used to characterize and compare the two groups. Legislators who prioritized BH issues (N=125) were significantly more likely than those who did not to identify research evidence as a factor that determined policy priorities (odds ratio=1.91, 95% confidence interval=1.25-2.90, p=.002). Those who prioritized BH issues also attributed more importance to ten of 12 features of research, and the difference was significant for four features (unbiased, p=.014; presented in a concise way, p=.044; delivered by someone known or respected, p=.033; and tells a story, p=.030). Those who prioritized BH issues also engaged more often in eight of 11 research-seeking and utilization practices, and a significance difference was found for one (attending research presentations, p=.012). Legislators who prioritized BH issues actively sought, had distinct preferences for, and were particularly influenced by research evidence. Testing legislator-focused BH research dissemination strategies is an area for future research.

A Tool to Assess and Compare Knowledge Mobilization Efforts of Faculties of Education, Research Brokering Organizations, Ministries of Education, and School Districts

There are few tools that exist to measure knowledge mobilization (KMb), the process of connecting research to policy and practice, across diverse organizations and sectors. This article reports on a comparison of KMb efforts of 105 educational organizations: faculties of education (N = 21), intermediary organizations (N = 44), school districts (N = 14), and ministries of education (N = 26). This study used an instrument that analyzed KMb efforts along two dimensions -- (1) research dissemination strategies (products, events, and networks) and (2) research use indicators (different types of indicators, ease of use, accessibility, collaboration, and mission) – using data available on organizational websites. Findings: Intermediaries and faculties of education are producing stronger efforts in relation to knowledge mobilization than school districts and ministries of education; however, even faculties and intermediaries generally have modest efforts. Most KMb efforts are product based, with network strategies usually being the weakest KMb strategy utilized.

Linking Research Findings and Decision Makers: Insights and Recommendations From a Wildfire Study

Transformation of research findings into relevant policies and programs is a principle for ensuring the creation of usable science. One way of achieving this is to employ knowledge translation to disseminate findings between researchers and end users. In this article the process of achieving integrated knowledge translation (iKT) is discussed based upon our experiences conducting a study examining the human impacts of a wildfire. Reflections about this process revealed that the unique university–government relationship was the most important factor in addressing the needs of decision makers. The discussion of our challenges and successes is offered to other researchers who may be engaged in developing similar research dissemination strategies and hope to have a positive impact on policy development.

Importance of scientific resources among local public health practitioners.

We examined the perceived importance of scientific resources for decision-making among local health department (LHD) practitioners in the United States. We used data from LHD practitioners (n = 849). Respondents ranked important decision-making resources, methods for learning about public health research, and academic journal use. We calculated descriptive statistics and used logistic regression to measure associations of individual and LHD characteristics with importance of scientific resources. Systematic reviews of scientific literature (24.7%) were most frequently ranked as important among scientific resources, followed by scientific reports (15.9%), general literature review articles (6.5%), and 1 or a few scientific studies (4.8%). Graduate-level education (adjusted odds ratios [AORs] = 1.7-3.5), larger LHD size (AORs = 2.0-3.5), and leadership support (AOR = 1.6; 95% confidence interval = 1.1, 2.3) were associated with a higher ranking of importance of scientific resources. Graduate training, larger LHD size, and leadership that supports a culture of evidence-based decision-making may increase the likelihood of practitioners viewing scientific resources as important. Targeting communication channels that practitioners view as important can also guide research dissemination strategies.

Perfiles de Comunicación en Google Scholar Metrics, índice h y nuevas estrategias de difusión de la investigación

Since 2012, Google Scholar Metrics allows researchers to create an online citations profile where their scientific and academic publications are assessed with personalised bibliometric indicators such as the ih index, the i10 index and the ih5 index, which refer to the relation between a researchers’ publications and their importance according to peers. This article presents the results of a research study about the use of the Google Scholar profile, the citation metrics, the h indicators, and the traditional citations counting tools among Communication researchers in Spain. This study also explores the new research dissemination strategies that have derived from the use of the h index in comparison to the impact factor

Community-derived research dissemination strategies in an Inuit community

Objectives. To determine how residents of the Inuit community of Nain, Nunatsiavut, Canada would like research results disseminated to their community.Study design. Qualitative study using focus groups and key informant interviews.Methods. As part of a larger study on food safety, one focus group was conducted with hunters (n=7) and a second with members of the general community (n=7) to determine research dissemination strategies previously used in the community, and to obtain recommendations for effective and appropriate strategies for future use. One-on-one key informant interviews were also conducted with Nain community members (n=5) selected for their insights on the study themes. Informants included a teacher, a nurse, a community elder, and one official from each of the Nain and Nunatsiavut governments. Data from focus groups and key informant interviews were combined and analysed using thematic analysis.Results. Open houses were identified as the preferred method to present research results to the community. Presentation methods should be interactive, visual and presented in both English and Inuktitut. Research dissemination efforts should be timely and involve both the researcher and a local official or community member to give the results additional validity and relevance. If possible, involving youth in the presentations will increase the impact of the messageConclusion. Preferred information dissemination techniques in this Inuit community echo successful techniques from research conducted in Aboriginal communities. Future knowledge translation efforts in Inuit communities should consider involving youth in presentations due to their influential nature within the community.

Research dissemination and knowledge translation

In the last part of a series on practical aspects of research, Maria Flynn and John Quinn outline the principles of research dissemination and knowledge translation and discuss some practical issues cardiac nurses will need to consider when planning their research dissemination strategies

Utilization of Research in Policymaking for Graduated Driver Licensing

Young drivers are overrepresented in road trauma and vehicle-related deaths, and there is substantial evidence for the effectiveness of graduated driver licensing (GDL) policies that minimize young drivers' exposure to high-risk driving situations. However, it is unclear what role research plays in the process of making GDL policies. To understand how research is utilized in this context, we interviewed influential GDL policy actors in Australia and the United States. We found that GDL policy actors generally believed that research evidence informed GDL policy development, but they also believed that research was used to justify politically determined policy positions that were not based on evidence. Further efforts, including more effective research dissemination strategies, are required to increase research utilization in policy.

Public Health Decision‐Makers' Informational Needs and Preferences for Receiving Research Evidence

The purpose of this study was to identify decision-makers' preferences for the transfer and exchange of research knowledge. This article is focused on how the participants define evidence-based decision-making and their preferences for receiving research evidence to integrate into the decision-making process. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 16 Ontario public health decision-makers from six Ontario public health units in this fundamental qualitative descriptive study. The sample included nine program managers, six directors, and one Medical Officer of Health. Participants were asked to define the term evidence-based decision-making and identify preferred research dissemination strategies. The interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and coded for emerging concepts. Participants defined evidence-based decision-making as a process whereby multiple sources of information were consulted before making a decision concerning the provision of services. To facilitate integration of research evidence into the decision-making process, public health administrators appreciate receiving, in both electronic and hard copy, systematic reviews, executive summaries of research, and clear statements of implications for practice from health service researchers. Although consensus exists among participants concerning the definition of evidence based public health decision-making, ongoing efforts are required to continue to promote the use of research evidence in program planning and public health policy. It is also important to continue to improve the ease with which public health decision-makers access systematic reviews, as well as to ensure the relevance and applicability of the results to the practice setting.

Applying Research on Effective Bilingual Instruction in a Multi-district Inservice Teacher Training Program

Abstract Helping teachers apply existing research on bilingual instruction is both a critical and complex problem. The Multi-district Trainer of Trainers Institute (MTTI) has used sophisticated staff development and research dissemination strategies to help teachers apply this body of research. This article has three purposes: (1) to describe the MTTI; (2) to analyze its impact; and (3) to examine MTTI as a research utilization process. Data were collected using interviews, questionnaires, observations and participant logs. The MTTI uses the Joyce and Showers staff training model, with important refinements in the peer coaching process. Teams of influential theoreticians and MTTI facilitators guide participants through cycles of training lasting several years. The content and bureaucratic arrangements are also described. MTTI has had substantial impact on participants’ use of bilingual instructional strategies in the classroom, on the institutionalization of these strategies in school settings, on the ins...