Teaching implementation science in a new Master of Science Program in Germany: a survey of stakeholder expectations

Abstract

BackgroundImplementation science in healthcare is an evolving discipline in German-speaking countries. In 2015, the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany, implemented a two-year full-time Master of Science program Health Services Research and Implementation Science. The curriculum introduces implementation science in the context of a broader program that also covers health services research, healthcare systems, research methods, and generic academic skills. Our aim was to assess the expectations of different stakeholder groups regarding the master’s program.MethodsAn online survey listing desired competencies of prospective graduates was developed and administered to four groups: national experts in the field (including potential employers of graduates), teaching staff, enrolled students, and prospective students (N = 169). Competencies were extracted from the curriculum’s module handbook. A five-point Likert scale was used for the assessment of 42 specific items. Data were analyzed descriptively.ResultsA total of 83 people participated in the survey (response rate 49%). The online survey showed a strong agreement across the groups concerning the desired competencies of graduates. About two-thirds of the listed competencies (27 items) were felt to be crucial or very important by 80% or more of participants, with little difference between stakeholder groups. Of the eight items specifically related to implementation in practice, six were in this category. Knowledge of implementation strategies (90% very important), knowledge of barriers and enablers of implementation (89%), and knowledge of evidence-based practice (89%) were the top priorities.ConclusionsThe master’s program is largely orientated towards the desired competencies of graduates according to students, teaching staff, and national experts.

Longitudinal evaluation of a course to build core competencies in implementation practice

“…Findings from this evaluation are comparable with other studies evaluating dissemination and implementation training initiatives and identified a number of factors that can be leveraged to enhance future initiatives for implementers [ 22 , 24 , 27 ]. Course facilitators can consider participants’ previous experience with KT (e.g., beginner, intermediate, advanced) [ 46 ] and fit with participants’ previous learning and experience from other fields (e.g., terminology and concepts from physician education, project management, quality improvement, change management, behavior psychology etc.).…”

“…There is also a gap in the literature describing evaluations of training activities for implementation scientists and practitioners. In response to an editorial in Implementation Science that emphasized the need to rigorously evaluate capacity building initiatives to advance the science and practice of dissemination and implementation [ 26 ], several evaluations of training initiatives were published [ 8 , 22 , 24 , 27 ]. However, to date, many of these studies evaluated training initiatives that targeted researchers with fewer focused on evidence implementation [ 28 ].…”

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 ].…”

“…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 ].…”

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

“…The authors state that an in-depth analysis of the quality of programs would aid in the planning of other programs in the area. Assessment of a master-level implementation science course in Germany found that stakeholders’ expectations primarily concerned acquiring knowledge about implementation strategies and knowledge of barriers and enablers, suggesting that implementation practice was considered more important than implementation science from a stakeholder perspective [ 5 ]. It is worth mentioning that education regarding implementation research in health care is provided also by the World Health Organization [ 6 ].…”