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

Abstract

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.

Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity

“…Addressing cross-cutting issues Build capacity for equity in implementation science Recent reviews of initiatives to build capacity in implementation science have shown a growing number of training opportunities across eight countries [132][133][134]. Capacity building for implementation science occurs in multiple formats including university degree programs, summer training institutes, workshops, and conferences [133].…”

Perspectives: Envisioning healthcare quality and safety in 2030

“…The scientific infrastructure for research on how to improve healthcare has developed significantly over the past two decades (Davis and D’Lima, 2020). Major funders, including the National Institute for Health Research in the UK, the National Institutes of Health in the USA, have provided substantial funding.…”

Evidence based nursing: barriers and challenges for contemporary nurses

“…In these lines, it has been estimated that it takes an average of two decades to implement one seventh of original research into benefit for patients and an average of a decade for interventions recommended as evidence-based practices (EBPs) to be fully adopted. 1,2 According to Fineout-Overholt & Johnson, (2006) a possible explanation for the delay of transferring research findings into routine daily practice is that some nurses tend to view research as someone else's responsibility to apply. 3 Furthermore, the authors state that "Implementation of evidence is essential for patients to receive the best care possible".…”