Longitudinal evaluation of a course to build core competencies in implementation practice

Moore, Julia E.; Rashid, Shusmita; Park, Jamie S.; Straus, Sharon E.

doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0800-3

Cited by 47 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2015, Implementation Science expressed a renewed interest in research describing and critically appraising D&I training initiatives [ 52 ]. Since this editorial, several descriptive and/or evaluative articles on D&I CBIs have been published [ 18 , 47 , 49 , 57 , 58 ], but for those working in D&I to gain a more detailed understanding of the evidence-base, a field-wide perspective of the published literature is required [ 59 ]. A useful starting point to address this gap is through the review and documentation of D&I CBIs that have been written up in the academic literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building capacity in dissemination and implementation science: a systematic review of the academic literature on teaching and training initiatives

Davis

D’Lima

2020

Implementation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has grown significantly over recent years. Alongside this, an increased demand for training in D&I from researchers and implementers has been seen. Research describing and evaluating D&I training opportunities, referred to here as ‘capacity building initiatives’ (CBIs), can help provide an understanding of different methods of training as well as training successes and challenges. However, to gain a more detailed understanding of the evidence-base and how D&I CBIs are being reported in publications, a field-wide examination of the academic literature is required. Methods Systematic review to identify the type and range of D&I CBIs discussed and/or appraised in the academic literature. EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were searched between January 2006 and November 2019. Articles were included if they reported on a D&I CBI that was developed by the authors (of each of the included articles) or the author’s host institution. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data using a standardised form. Results Thirty-one articles (from a total of 4181) were included. From these, 41 distinct D&I CBIs were identified which focussed on different contexts and professions, from 8 countries across the world. CBIs ranged from short courses to training institutes to being part of academic programmes. Nearly half were delivered face-face with the remainder delivered remotely or using a blended format. CBIs often stipulated specific eligibility criteria, strict application processes and/or were oversubscribed. Variabilities in the way in which the D&I CBIs were reported and/or evaluated were evident. Conclusions Increasing the number of training opportunities, as well as broadening their reach (to a wider range of learners), would help address the recognised deficit in D&I training. Standardisation in the reporting of D&I CBIs would enable the D&I community to better understand the findings across different contexts and scientific professions so that training gaps can be identified and overcome. More detailed examination of publications on D&I CBIs as well as the wider literature on capacity building would be of significant merit to the field.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building capacity in dissemination and implementation science: a systematic review of the academic literature on teaching and training initiatives

Davis

D’Lima

2020

Implementation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and content delivery components (didactic, on-site visits, mentoring, etc.) (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14).…”

Section: Contributions To the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Jacob

Gacad

Padek

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The core competencies framework presented in this study covers most of the competencies that have been identified from HIC settings,4–8 but it differs in its emphasis on contexts, health systems, ethics, equity issues, communication and advocacy skills (while the other frameworks emphasise IR theories, methods and designs). This difference may reflect how IR is viewed differently in LMIC settings compared with HICs.…”

Section: How Does This Framework Of Core Competencies In Ir For Lmicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A review of the literature yielded six relevant articles describing competencies in IR4–9; all of these focused on IR in high-income countries (HICs) except one, the UNICEF, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Bank and WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) IR toolkit,9 which identified broad learning domains for IR researchers in LMICs, but did not explicitly define competencies under these domains. Four articles identified competencies for IR education and training programme in HICs,4–7 one of which defined four competencies that were focused exclusively on the conduct of IR,4 while the other three included competencies covering skills required in all phases of IR, including the pre-IR phase (eg, planning of IR) and post-IR phase (eg, disseminating IR results) 5–7.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a framework of core competencies in implementation research for low/middle-income countries

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of implementation research (IR) is growing. However, there are no recognised IR core competencies in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), nor consistent curriculum across IR training programs globally. The goal of this effort is to develop a framework of IR core competencies for training programs in LMICs. The framework was developed using a mixed-methods approach consisting of two online surveys with IR training coordinators (n = 16) and academics (n = 89) affiliated with seven LMIC institutions, and a modified-Delphi process to evaluate the domains, competencies and proficiency levels included in the framework. The final framework comprised of 11 domains, 59 competencies and 52 sub-competencies, and emphasised competencies for modifying contexts, strengthening health systems, addressing ethical concerns, engaging stakeholders and communication especially for LMIC settings, in addition to competencies on IR theories, methods and designs. The framework highlights the interconnectedness of domains and competencies for IR and practice, and training in IR following the outlined competencies is not a linear process but circular and iterative, and starting points for training may vary widely by the project, institution and challenge being addressed. The framework established the need for a theory-based approach to identifying proficiency levels for IR competencies (ie, to determine proficiency levels for IR based on generalisable educational theories for competency-based education), and the relevance of various IR competencies for LMICs compared with high-income settings. This framework is useful for identifying and evaluating competencies and trainings, and providing direction and support for professional development in IR.

show abstract

Longitudinal evaluation of a course to build core competencies in implementation practice

Cited by 47 publications

References 39 publications

Building capacity in dissemination and implementation science: a systematic review of the academic literature on teaching and training initiatives

Building capacity in dissemination and implementation science: a systematic review of the academic literature on teaching and training initiatives

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

Developing a framework of core competencies in implementation research for low/middle-income countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About