<i>On Academics</i>: Advancing the Science and Practice of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: A Novel Course for Public Health Students and Academic Researchers

Norton, Wynne E.

doi:10.1177/003335491412900613

Cited by 22 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…sampling using faculty of the above programs and review of the Implementation Network listserv content, which publicizes D&I research training opportunities to over 2000 subscribers every month [10]. The meeting co-chairs, themselves core faculty of multiple D&I research training courses, invited 14 individuals primarily involved in D&I research training, as faculty, course directors and trainees, identified through the searches referred to above.…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping training needs for dissemination and implementation research: lessons from a synthesis of existing D&I research training programs

Chambers

Proctor

Brownson

et al. 2016

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With recent growth in the field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) research, multiple training programs have been developed to build capacity, including summer training institutes, graduate courses, degree programs, workshops, and conferences. While opportunities for D&I research training have expanded, course organizers acknowledge that available slots are insufficient to meet demand within the scientific and practitioner community. In addition, individual programs have struggled to best fit various needs of trainees, sometimes splitting coursework between specific D&I content and more introductory grant writing material. This article, stemming from a 2013 NIH workshop, reviews experiences across multiple training programs to align training needs, career stage and role, and availability of programs. We briefly review D&I needs and opportunities by career stage and role, discuss variations among existing training programs in format, mentoring relationships, and other characteristics, identify challenges of mapping needs of trainees to programs, and present recommendations for future D&I research training.

show abstract

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping training needs for dissemination and implementation research: lessons from a synthesis of existing D&I research training programs

Chambers

Proctor

Brownson

et al. 2016

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Davis

D’Lima

2020

Implementation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…At the conclusion of the week, the course was positively assessed by the trainees in terms of relevance to their needs/interests, appropriate teaching strategies and gain in confidence in ability to apply the skills and knowledge gained. A university course designed to expand training opportunities in D&I science for public health students and academic researchers, provided by the University of Alabama in 2012–2013, was evaluated by Norton [ 9 ]. The course was found effective for simultaneously teaching students and academic researchers about D&I science.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five years’ experience of an annual course on implementation science: an evaluation among course participants

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIncreasing interest in implementation science has generated a demand for education and training opportunities for researchers and practitioners in the field. However, few implementation science courses have been described or evaluated in the scientific literature. The aim of the present study was to provide a short- and long-term evaluation of the implementation training at Linköping University, Sweden.MethodsTwo data collections were carried out. In connection with the final seminar, a course evaluation form, including six items on satisfaction and suggestions for improvement, was distributed to the course participants, a total of 101 students from 2011 to 2015 (data collection 1), response rate 72%. A questionnaire including six items was distributed by e-mail to the same students in autumn 2016 (data collection 2), response rate 63%. Data from the two data collections were presented descriptively and analysed using the Kirkpatrick model consisting of four levels: reaction, learning, behaviour and results.ResultsThe students were very positive immediately after course participation, rating high on overall perception of the course and the contents (reaction). The students also rated high on achievement of the course objectives and considered their knowledge in implementation science to be very good and to a high degree due to course participation (learning). Knowledge gained from the course was viewed to be useful (behaviour) and was applied to a considerable extent in research projects and work apart from research activities (results).ConclusionsThe evaluation of the doctoral-level implementation science course provided by Linköping University showed favourable results, both in the short and long term. The adapted version of the Kirkpatrick model was useful because it provided a structure for evaluation of the short- and long-term learning outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0618-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

On Academics: Advancing the Science and Practice of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: A Novel Course for Public Health Students and Academic Researchers

Cited by 22 publications

References 14 publications

Mapping training needs for dissemination and implementation research: lessons from a synthesis of existing D&I research training programs

Mapping training needs for dissemination and implementation research: lessons from a synthesis of existing D&I research training programs

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

Five years’ experience of an annual course on implementation science: an evaluation among course participants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About