A methodology for enhancing implementation science proposals: comparison of face-to-face versus virtual workshops

Abstract

BackgroundWith the current funding climate and need for advancements in implementation science, there is a growing demand for grantsmanship workshops to increase the quality and rigor of proposals. A group-based implementation science-focused grantsmanship workshop, the Implementation Development Workshop (IDW), is one methodology to address this need. This manuscript provides an overview of the IDW structure, format, and findings regarding its utility.ResultsThe IDW methodology allows researchers to vet projects in the proposal stage in a structured format with a facilitator and two types of expert participants: presenters and attendees. The presenter uses a one-page handout and verbal presentation to present their proposal and questions. The facilitator elicits feedback from attendees using a format designed to maximize the number of unique points made. After each IDW, participants completed an anonymous survey assessing perceptions of the IDW. Presenters completed a funding survey measuring grant submission and funding success. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of participants who participated in both delivery formats. Mixed method analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of the IDW and compare the delivery formats. Of those who participated in an IDW (N = 72), 40 participated in face-to-face only, 16 in virtual only, and 16 in both formats. Thirty-eight (face-to-face n = 12, 35 % response rate; virtual n = 26, 66.7 % response rate) responded to the surveys and seven (15.3 % response rate), who had attended both formats, completed an interview. Of 36 total presenters, 17 (face-to-face n = 12, 42.9 % response rate; virtual n = 5, 62.9 % response rate) responded to the funding survey. Mixed method analyses indicated that the IDW was effective for collaboration and growth, effective for enhancing success in obtaining grants, and acceptable. A third (35.3 %) of presenters ultimately received funding for their proposal, and more than 80 % of those who presented indicated they would present again in the future. The IDW structure and facilitation process were found to be acceptable, with both formats rated as equally strong.ConclusionsThe IDW presents an acceptable and successful methodology for increasing competitiveness of implementation science grant proposals.

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

“…There is also a gap in the literature describing evaluations of training activities for implementation scientists and practitioners. In response to an editorial in Implementation Science that emphasized the need to rigorously evaluate capacity building initiatives to advance the science and practice of dissemination and implementation [ 26 ], several evaluations of training initiatives were published [ 8 , 22 , 24 , 27 ]. However, to date, many of these studies evaluated training initiatives that targeted researchers with fewer focused on evidence implementation [ 28 ].…”

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

“…Interactive workshops were offered by just under half of the resource initiatives and have the potential to develop knowledge and skills related to D & I science, as well as offer enhanced networking opportunities. Although these were predominantly offered in-person, the use of virtual workshops may greatly enhance the reach of these resources, as they can be as effective and well-received by participants as in-person workshops [ 23 ]. Conferences were also offered by a substantial minority of resource initiatives.…”

Building the Next Generation of Implementation Science Careers to Advance Health Equity

“…29 The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) created the Network of Expertise to engage new and established investigators, Evidence-based Practice Champions, and implementation practitioners through both in-person and virtual Implementation Development Workshops. 30 These networks and training centers are just a few exemplars of collaborations and career training efforts that use health equity in the training models for researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders.…”

“…Notably, three of the eight overarching NHLBI specific research objectives are relevant to implementation science training and advancing health equity: to investigate factors that account for differences in health among populations (Objective 3); to optimize clinical and implementation research to improve health and reduce disease (Objective 6); and to further develop, diversify, and sustain a scientific workforce capable of accomplishing the NHLBI's mission (Objective 8). 30 Fostering implementation science careers that include research training on how to best advance health equity is a major step toward addressing NHLBI's overall strategic goals and objectives. Scientific experts and thought leaders in the fields of implementation science, prevention science, health inequities research, training, and research workforce development convened to stimulate approaches and strategies to increase participation in implementation research that addresses health equity.…”