A review of policy dissemination and implementation research funded by the National Institutes of Health, 2007–2014

Abstract

BackgroundPolicy has a tremendous potential to improve population health when informed by research evidence. Such evidence, however, typically plays a suboptimal role in policymaking processes. The field of policy dissemination and implementation research (policy D&I) exists to address this challenge. The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine the extent to which policy D&I was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), (2) identify trends in NIH-funded policy D&I, and (3) describe characteristics of NIH-funded policy D&I projects.MethodsThe NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to identify all projects funded through D&I-focused funding announcements. We screened for policy D&I projects by searching project title, abstract, and term fields for mentions of “policy,” “policies,” “law,” “legal,” “legislation,” “ordinance,” “statute,” “regulation,” “regulatory,” “code,” or “rule.” A project was classified as policy D&I if it explicitly proposed to conduct research about the content of a policy, the process through which it was developed, or outcomes it produced. A coding guide was iteratively developed, and all projects were independently coded by two researchers. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to obtain additional project information and validate coding decisions. Descriptive statistics—stratified by funding mechanism, Institute, and project characteristics—were produced.ResultsBetween 2007 and 2014, 146 projects were funded through the D&I funding announcements, 12 (8.2 %) of which were policy D&I. Policy D&I funding totaled $16,177,250, equivalent to 10.5 % of all funding through the D&I funding announcements. The proportion of funding for policy D&I projects ranged from 14.6 % in 2007 to 8.0 % in 2012. Policy D&I projects were primarily focused on policy outcomes (66.7 %), implementation (41.7 %), state-level policies (41.7 %), and policies within the USA (83.3 %). Tobacco (33.3 %) and cancer (25.0 %) control were the primary topics of focus. Many projects combined survey (58.3 %) and interview (33.3 %) methods with analysis of archival data sources.ConclusionsNIH has made an initial investment in policy D&I research, but the level of support has varied between Institutes. Policy D&I researchers have utilized a variety of designs, methods, and data sources to investigate the development processes, content, and outcomes of public and private policies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0367-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Controlling cardiovascular diseases in low and middle income countries by placing proof in pragmatism

“…9 These findings further support the recommendation of contextualisation and targeted packaging of solutions to all relevant specific audiences in the implementation cycle. 12 Considerations for contextualisation should include factors related to each of the 6Ps (tables 1 and 2 and figure 1) including external contextual factors (policies, incentivisation structures, dominant paradigms, stakeholders' buy-in, infrastructure and advances in technology), organisation-related factors (culture, available resources, integration with existing processes, relationships, skill mix and staff involvement) and individual professional factors (professional role, underlying philosophy of care and competencies).…”

“…This will enable researchers to interactively and continuously engage with all stakeholders; such as providers ( personnel-clinicians, healthcare workers), policymakers, patients, populace (communities), partners and payers (table 2 and figure 1, points (E and F)). 9 20 The right combinations of channels can be selected based on the preferences of the target audiences and accruing evidence.…”

Applying the Policy Ecology Framework to Philadelphia’s Behavioral Health Transformation Efforts

“…Over the past decade, DBHIDS has undertaken a system-wide transformation to ensure that services are based upon the principles of recovery, resilience, and self-determination to achieve the best outcomes (Abrahams et al, 2013). The Commissioner of DBHIDS, Dr. Arthur Evans, recognized that helping people to recover would require leveraging the best science, and that EBPs are foundational priority for recovery-oriented behavioral health service provision (Williams et al, 2016). Thus, an important part of the transformation effort is a commitment to “…align resources, policies and technical assistance to support the ongoing transformation of our system to one that promotes and routinely utilizes evidence-based practices” (Abrahams et al, 2013, p. A–7).…”

Mapping the growing discipline of dissemination and implementation science in health

“…Mapping scientific fields has become increasingly accessible given advances in computing, information processing, and technology, and provide critical data on how a field emerges, develops[19], flourishes, and/or disbands over time. These activities[20] are accomplished through a variety of methods, including (but not limited to) summaries of grant-funded research (e.g., portfolio analysis of cancer-related D&I research grants[21]; portfolio analysis of NIH-wide D&I research grants[22]; review of policy-related D&I grants[23]) systematic reviews of key components of the field (e.g., measurement instruments[24, 25] and measurement repositories[26]) and analyses of collaboration networks [19, 27]. …”