Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science

Abstract

The gap between discovery of public health knowledge and application in practice settings and policy development is due in part to ineffective dissemination. This article describes (1) lessons related to dissemination from related disciplines (eg, communication, agriculture, social marketing, political science), (2) current practices among researchers, (3) key audience characteristics, (4) available tools for dissemination, and (5) measures of impact. Dissemination efforts need to take into account the message, source, audience, and channel. Practitioners and policy makers can be more effectively reached via news media, social media, issue or policy briefs, one-on-one meetings, and workshops and seminars. Numerous “upstream” and “midstream” indicators of impact include changes in public perception or awareness, greater use of evidence-based interventions, and changes in policy. By employing ideas outlined in this article, scientific discoveries are more likely to be applied in public health agencies and policy-making bodies.

Sharing New Knowledge: A Review of Dissemination Rates and Journal Emphasis in Career and Technical Education

“…In this regard, over the past decade, online sources have become the predominant platform for dissemination of information and making archival literature readily available. As such, most scholarly journals are now available online, which has increased the relevance of online browsing and searching for scholarly information (Brownson, Eyler, Harris, Moore, & Tabak, 2018;Tenopir, King, Edwards, & Wu, 2009).…”

“…To keep up with changes in the field, some journals have been renamed to reflect the new emphasis, other journals have retained their historical branding, and new journals have emerged. The common denominator to all journals in the field is the universal availability in electronic format, which is now essentially the norm in scholarly dissemination of information (Brownson et al, 2018;Lawrence, 2001;Tenopir et al, 2009).…”

“…Instead, other indicators such as publication consistency, peer review process, and reach to intended audience should be taken into consideration (Flanagan, 2013;King & Tenopir, 2001;Vogela, Hattke, & Petersen, 2017). In a small field, existing journals must compete for a limited number of submissions and ensure consistent editorial support and peer reviewing to keep publication production at predictable rates (Brownson et al, 2018;Rojewski & Domenico, 2004;Solomon, 2007). Further, the emphasis of publications is also important to ensure that new knowledge is reaching the intended audience (Brownson et al, 2018;King & Tenopir, 2001;King, Tenopir, Hansen Montgomery, & Aerni, 2003).…”

“…In a small field, existing journals must compete for a limited number of submissions and ensure consistent editorial support and peer reviewing to keep publication production at predictable rates (Brownson et al, 2018;Rojewski & Domenico, 2004;Solomon, 2007). Further, the emphasis of publications is also important to ensure that new knowledge is reaching the intended audience (Brownson et al, 2018;King & Tenopir, 2001;King, Tenopir, Hansen Montgomery, & Aerni, 2003). Thus, in the field of CTE, historically rooted in the trades but currently embracing a broader preparation for careers and interdisciplinary academic connections, the current research asks how are journals disseminating scholarly information?…”

“…The goal of conducting research in any field is to have an impact on improved practices, processes, and products. To meet this goal, there is an ongoing quest to reduce the gap from research to practice, with scholarly journals serving as the mediating vehicle (Brownson et al, 2018). In order to provide contextual background for this article, the role of journals in the dissemination of research information and a model for dissemination are reviewed and discussed.…”