OBJECTIVES: We have described the practice of designing for dissemination among researchers in the United States with the intent of identifying gaps and areas for improvement. METHODS: In 2012, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 266 researchers using a search of the top 12 public health journals in PubMed and lists available from government-sponsored research. The sample involved scientists at universities, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States. RESULTS: In the pooled sample, 73% of respondents estimated they spent less than 10% of their time on dissemination. About half of respondents (53%) had a person or team in their unit dedicated to dissemination. Seventeen percent of all respondents used a framework or theory to plan their dissemination activities. One third of respondents (34%) always or usually involved stakeholders in the research process. CONCLUSIONS: The current data and the existing literature suggest considerable room for improvement in designing for dissemination.
OBJECTIVES: We have described the practice of designing for dissemination among researchers in the United States with the intent of identifying gaps and areas for improvement. METHODS: In 2012, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 266 researchers using a search of the top 12 public health journals in PubMed and lists available from government-sponsored research. The sample involved scientists at universities, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States. RESULTS: In the pooled sample, 73% of respondents estimated they spent less than 10% of their time on dissemination. About half of respondents (53%) had a person or team in their unit dedicated to dissemination. Seventeen percent of all respondents used a framework or theory to plan their dissemination activities. One third of respondents (34%) always or usually involved stakeholders in the research process. CONCLUSIONS: The current data and the existing literature suggest considerable room for improvement in designing for dissemination.
Authors: Abraham Wandersman; Jennifer Duffy; Paul Flaspohler; Rita Noonan; Keri Lubell; Lindsey Stillman; Morris Blachman; Richard Dunville; Janet Saul Journal: Am J Community Psychol Date: 2008-06
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Borsika A Rabin; Peyton Purcell; Sana Naveed; Richard P Moser; Michelle D Henton; Enola K Proctor; Ross C Brownson; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Sara Wilcox; Ruth P Saunders; Andrew T Kaczynski; Melinda Forthofer; Patricia A Sharpe; Cheryl Goodwin; Margaret Condrasky; Vernon L Kennedy; Danielle E Jake-Schoffman; Deborah Kinnard; Brent Hutto Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Rachel G Tabak; Margaret M Padek; Jon F Kerner; Kurt C Stange; Enola K Proctor; Maureen J Dobbins; Graham A Colditz; David A Chambers; Ross C Brownson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Gila Neta; Russell E Glasgow; Christopher R Carpenter; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Borsika A Rabin; Maria E Fernandez; Ross C Brownson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jonathon P Leider; Gulzar Shah; Nikki Rider; Angela Beck; Brian C Castrucci; Jenine K Harris; Katie Sellers; Danielle Varda; Jiali Ye; Paul C Erwin; Ross C Brownson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ross C Brownson; Graham A Colditz; Maureen Dobbins; Karen M Emmons; Jon F Kerner; Margaret Padek; Enola K Proctor; Kurt C Stange Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 4.689