BACKGROUND: Research on how best to deliver efficacious public health strategies in heterogeneous community and organizational contexts remains limited. Such studies require the active engagement of public health practice settings in the design, implementation, and translation of research. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) provide mechanisms for research engagement, but until now they have not been tested in public health settings. PURPOSE: This study uses data from participants in 14 public health PBRNs and a national comparison group of public health agencies to study processes influencing the engagement of public health settings in research implementation and translation activities. METHODS: A cross-sectional network analysis survey was fielded with participants in public health PBRNs approximately 1 year after network formation (n=357) and with a nationally representative comparison group of U.S. local health departments not participating in PBRNs (n=625). Hierarchic regression models were used to estimate how organizational attributes and PBRN network structures influence engagement in research implementation and translation activities. Data were collected in 2010-2012 and analyzed in 2012. RESULTS: Among PBRN participants, both researchers and practice agencies reported high levels of engagement in research activities. Local public health agencies participating in PBRNs were two to three times more likely than nonparticipating agencies to engage in research implementation and translation activities (p<0.05). Participants in less densely connected PBRN networks and in more peripheral locations within these networks reported higher levels of research engagement, greater perceived benefits from engagement, and greater likelihood of continued participation. CONCLUSIONS: PBRN networks can serve as effective mechanisms for facilitating research implementation and translation among public health practice settings.
BACKGROUND: Research on how best to deliver efficacious public health strategies in heterogeneous community and organizational contexts remains limited. Such studies require the active engagement of public health practice settings in the design, implementation, and translation of research. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) provide mechanisms for research engagement, but until now they have not been tested in public health settings. PURPOSE: This study uses data from participants in 14 public health PBRNs and a national comparison group of public health agencies to study processes influencing the engagement of public health settings in research implementation and translation activities. METHODS: A cross-sectional network analysis survey was fielded with participants in public health PBRNs approximately 1 year after network formation (n=357) and with a nationally representative comparison group of U.S. local health departments not participating in PBRNs (n=625). Hierarchic regression models were used to estimate how organizational attributes and PBRN network structures influence engagement in research implementation and translation activities. Data were collected in 2010-2012 and analyzed in 2012. RESULTS: Among PBRNparticipants, both researchers and practice agencies reported high levels of engagement in research activities. Local public health agencies participating in PBRNs were two to three times more likely than nonparticipating agencies to engage in research implementation and translation activities (p<0.05). Participants in less densely connected PBRN networks and in more peripheral locations within these networks reported higher levels of research engagement, greater perceived benefits from engagement, and greater likelihood of continued participation. CONCLUSIONS:PBRN networks can serve as effective mechanisms for facilitating research implementation and translation among public health practice settings.
Authors: Glen P Mays; Megan C McHugh; Kyumin Shim; Natalie Perry; Paul K Halverson; Dennis Lenaway; Ramal Moonesinge Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2004 May-Jun
Authors: Kay A Lovelace; Robert E Aronson; Kelly L Rulison; Jeffrey D Labban; Gulzar H Shah; Mark Smith Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Elisia L Cohen; Katharine J Head; Margaret J McGladrey; Anna G Hoover; Robin C Vanderpool; Colleen Bridger; Angela Carman; Richard A Crosby; Elaine Darling; Mary Tucker-McLaughlin; Nancy Winterbauer Journal: Health Commun Date: 2015
Authors: William C Livingood; Angela H Peden; Gulzar H Shah; Nandi A Marshall; Ketty M Gonzalez; Russell B Toal; Dayna S Alexander; Alesha R Wright; Lynn D Woodhouse Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 2.655