Building capacity: a cross-sectional evaluation of the US Training Institute for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health.

Autor: Vinson CA; National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA. cvinson@mail.nih.gov., Clyne M; National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA., Cardoza N; Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, PO Box 8040, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA., Emmons KM; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Implementation science : IS [Implement Sci] 2019 Nov 21; Vol. 14 (1), pp. 97. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Nov 21.
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0947-6
Abstrakt: Background: In 2011, the National Institute of Health (NIH) initiated the Training in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH) program. Over its first 5 years, TIDIRH provided an in-person, week-long training to 197 investigators who were new to the dissemination and implementation (D&I) field. This paper evaluates the long-term impact of TIDIRH on trainees' use of D&I methods, collaborations, and research funding.
Methods: Trainees were selected to participate through a competitive process. We compared the 197 trainees to 125 unselected applicants (UAs) whose application score was within one standard deviation of the mean for all trainees' scores for the same application year. A portfolio analysis examined electronic applications for NIH peer-reviewed funding submitted by trainees and UAs between 2011 and 2019. A survey of trainees and UAs was conducted in 2016, as was a faculty survey among the 87 individuals who served as TIDIRH instructors.
Results: A major goal of TIDIRH was to build the field, at least in part through networking and collaboration. Thirty-eight percent of trainees indicated they had extensive contact with faculty following the training, and an additional 38% indicated they had at least limited contact. Twenty-four percent of trainees had extensive collaboration with other fellows post-TIDIRH, and 43% had at least limited contact. Collaborative activities included the full range of academic activities, including manuscript development, grant writing, and consultation/collaboration on research studies. The portfolio analysis combining grant mechanisms showed that overall, TIDIRH trainees submitted more peer-reviewed NIH grants per person than UA and had significantly better funding outcomes (25% vs 19% funded, respectively). The greatest difference was for large research project, program/center, and cooperative agreement grants mechanisms.
Conclusions: Overall, this evaluation found that TIDIRH is achieving its three primary goals: (1) building a pipeline of D&I investigators, (2) creating a network of scholars to build the field, and (3) improving funding outcomes for D&I grants.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje