Conceptualizing Dissemination Research and Activity: The Case of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative

Abstract

Cardiovascular diseases are now the world's leading cause of death. To reduce high rates of such preventable premature deaths, evidence-based approaches to heart health promotion must be disseminated across public health systems. To succeed, we must build capacity to disseminate strategies that are practical and effective. However, we know little about such dissemination, and we lack both conceptual frameworks to guide our thinking and appropriate scientific methodologies. This article presents conceptual and analytic frameworks that integrate several approaches to understanding and studying dissemination processes within public health systems. This work is based on the Canadian Heart Health Dissemination Project, a research program examining a national heart health dissemination initiative. The primary focus is the development of a systematic protocol for measuring levels of capacity and dissemination, and determining successful conditions for, and barriers to, capacity and dissemination, as well as the nature of the relationship between these key concepts.

A Glossary for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health

“…The characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals within an adopting organization (eg, position in the organization, education, individual concerns, and motivations) may also determine the uptake and use of an innovation. 49 Rogers classifies the individual adopters according to their degree of innovativeness into five categories: (1) innovators, (2) early adopters, (3 and 4) early and late majority, and (5) laggards. 23,43 …”

Results from a psychometric assessment of a new tool for measuring evidence-based decision making in public health organizations

“…These include diffusion of innovations, theories for knowledge transfer and exchange in work settings, and institutional theory (Kramer & Cole, 2003; Kramer et al, 2013; Kramer & Leithwood, 2004; March & Olsen, 1983; North, 1990; Rogers, 2003; Scott, 2008). While there has been some previous research in conceptualizing and developing theory-based measures for studying dissemination and implementation of EBI’s in public health organizational settings (Barrett, Plotnikoff, Raine, & Anderson, 2005; Elliott et al, 2003; Stamatakis et al, 2012; Yousefi-Nooraie, Dobbins, & Marin, 2014), there are few measurement scales for EBDM that have been empirically tested in these settings and mapped closely to a conceptual framework.…”

Community Response to SARS in Hong Kong

“…With participation by community members in such a context, health promoters often arrive at an ecological solution to local health problems, as well as providing members with an opportunity to exercise civic responsibilities to their own health (Lasker & Weiss, 2003). In the past decade, this approach has been widely implemented in health promotion activities, particularly in the areas of heart disease prevention (Elliott et al, 2003;Lomas, 1998;Riley, Taylor, & Elliott, 2001) and AIDS prevention (Campbell & Mzaidume, 2001;Fullilove, Green, & Fullilove, 2000;Gollub, Brown, Savouillan, Waterlot, & Coruble, 2002). This line of community involvement develops community empowerment and it has been formally recognised as "a central theme of health promotion discourse" (Laverack & Wallerstein, 2001, p. 179).…”