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

Abstract

BackgroundIn 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.MethodsTrainees 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsOverall, 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.

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

“…Articles spanned a 13-year period (2006–2019) with the majority published during or post 2014 ( N = 21) [ 18 , 47 , 57 , 58 , 62 , 88 – 103 ] and 10 articles published pre 2014 ( N = 10) [ 48 , 49 , 104 – 111 ]. Publications originated from 8 countries: the USA ( N = 21) [ 18 , 48 , 57 , 58 , 62 , 88 – 90 , 92 – 96 , 98 – 101 , 103 , 104 , 108 , 109 ], Canada ( N = 3) [ 106 , 107 , 110 ], Australia ( N = 2) [ 49 , 91 ], the UK ( N = 1) [ 105 ], Sweden ( N = 1) [ 47 ], Kenya ( N = 1) [ 97 ], Germany ( N = 1) [ 102 ] and Saudi Arabi ( N = 1) [ 111 ].…”

“…Most of the articles ( N = 27) [ 47 – 49 , 57 , 58 , 62 , 88 , 89 , 91 – 103 , 105 – 109 , 111 ] reported on just one CBI, with the remaining articles ( N = 4) [ 18 , 90 , 104 , 110 ] discussing between 2 and 10 different D&I CBIs. Four CBIs were the focus of more than one article, including the Implementation Research Institute (IRI) (mentioned in 4 articles) [ 18 a , 57 , 92 , 109 ], the Knowledge Translation Summer Institute (KTSI) (mentioned in 3 articles) [ 106 , 107 , 110 c ], the Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) (mentioned in 2 articles) [ 18 b , 98 ] and the Training in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH) (mentioned in 2 articles) [ 48 , 103 ]. Considering the articles separately, 48 CBIs were reported, but taking the articles collectively, accounting for those CBIs that were reported in more than one article, 41 distinct CBIs were reported (across the 31 included articles).…”

“…Where CBIs are discussed in multiple articles (e.g. data is drawn from two articles on the TIDIRH) [ 48 , 103 ], this is reflected in the number of references accompanying each finding.…”

“…Of the 41 D&I CBIs identified, a range of ‘types’ of training (as defined by the authors of each of the included articles) were reported including training Institutes ( N = 4) [ 18 a , 48 , 57 , 92 , 103 , 106 , 107 , 109 , 110 c ] or courses that were part of training programmes ( N = 2) [ 18 b , 98 , 100 ] or training initiatives ( N = 1) [ 99 ]; workshops ( N = 4) [ 49 , 93 , 95 , 111 ], seminars ( N = 3) [ 90 a , 110 a,b ], clerkships ( N = 1) [ 88 ], mentorship programmes ( N = 1) [ 90 b ], graduate certificates ( N = 1) [ 89 ], webinars ( N = 1) [ 90 c ], fellowship programmes ( N = 1) [ 97 ], master’s programmes ( N = 1) [ 102 ] or modules that have been integrated in master’s programmes—including clinical research ( N = 1) [ 104 a ] primary health care ( N = 1) [ 105 ] and public health ( N = 1) [ 62 ]; or PhD programmes ( N = 1) [ 94 ] or modules that are integrated as part of a Doctors of Nursing programme ( N = 2) [ 101 , 108 ]. The 15 remaining CBIs were termed by the authors as ‘courses’ relating (in part or in full) to D&I science [ 18 c,d , 47 , 58 , 91 , 96 , 104 b,c , 110 d-k ].…”

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

“…Recently, two D&I training programs introduced unsuccessful applicants as a comparison group to evaluate research productivity resulting from program participation. The evaluation of the Training Institute for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH) combined cross-sectional surveys of past fellows with portfolio analysis of grants submitted and funded (15). In addition, the mental health-focused Implementation Research Institute (IRI) program studied bibliometric outcomes among fellows and non-selected applicants (16).…”