Designing for dissemination among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA.

Autor:	Shato T; Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.; Department of Surgery (Division of Public Health Sciences), Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA., Kepper MM; Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA., McLoughlin GM; College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.; Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control, Brown School and School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA., Tabak RG; Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA., Glasgow RE; Department of Family Medicine and ACCORDS Research Center, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA., Brownson RC; Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.; Department of Surgery (Division of Public Health Sciences), Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of clinical and translational science [J Clin Transl Sci] 2023 Dec 14; Vol. 8 (1), pp. e8. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Dec 14 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI:	10.1017/cts.2023.695
Abstrakt:	Introduction: The slow adoption of evidence-based interventions reflects gaps in effective dissemination of research evidence. Existing studies examining designing for dissemination (D4D), a process that ensures interventions and implementation strategies consider adopters' contexts, have focused primarily on researchers, with limited perspectives of practitioners. To address these gaps, this study examined D4D practice among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among public health and primary care practitioners in April to June 2022 (analyzed in July 2022 to December 2022). Both groups were recruited through national-level rosters. The survey was informed by previous D4D studies and pretested using cognitive interviewing. Results: Among 577 respondents, 45% were public health and 55% primary care practitioners, with an overall survey response rate of 5.5%. The most commonly ranked sources of research evidence were email announcements for public health practitioners (43.7%) and reading academic journals for clinical practitioners (37.9%). Practitioners used research findings to promote health equity (67%) and evaluate programs/services (66%). A higher proportion of clinical compared to public health practitioners strongly agreed/agreed that within their work setting they had adequate financial resources (36% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) and adequate staffing (36% vs. 24%, p = 0.001) to implement research findings. Only 20% of all practitioners reported having a designated individual or team responsible for finding and disseminating research evidence. Conclusions: Addressing both individual and modifiable barriers, including organizational capacity to access and use research evidence, may better align the efforts of researchers with priorities and resources of practitioners. Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. (© The Author(s) 2023.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu