Rachel G Tabak1, Katherine A Stamatakis2, Julie A Jacobs1, Ross C Brownson3. 1. Washington University in St. Louis, Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, St. Louis, MO. 2. Saint Louis University College for Public Health and Social Justice, Departments of Epidemiology and Behavioral Science and Health Education, St. Louis, MO. 3. Washington University in St. Louis, Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, St. Louis, MO ; Washington University in St. Louis, School of Medicine, Division of Public Health Sciences and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We identified factors related to dissemination efforts by researchers to non-research audiences to reduce the gap between research generation and uptake in public health practice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 266 researchers at universities, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and CDC. We identified scientists using a search of public health journals and lists from government-sponsored research. The scientists completed a 35-item online survey in 2012. Using multivariable logistic regression, we compared self-rated effort to disseminate findings to non-research audiences (excellent/good vs. poor) across predictor variables in three categories: perceptions or reasons to disseminate, perceived expectation by employer/funders, and professional training and experience. RESULTS: One-third of researchers rated their dissemination efforts as poor. Many factors were significantly related to whether a researcher rated him/herself as excellent/good, including obligation to disseminate findings (odds ratio [OR] = 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1, 6.8), dissemination important for their department (OR=2.3, 95% CI 1.2, 4.5), dissemination expected by employer (OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.2) or by funder (OR=2.1, 95% CI 1.3, 3.2), previous work in a practice/policy setting (OR=4.4, 95% CI 2.1, 9.3), and university researchers with Prevention Research Center affiliation vs. NIH researchers (OR=4.7, 95% CI 1.4, 15.7). With all variables in the model, dissemination expected by funder (OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.1) and previous work in a practice/policy setting (OR=3.5, OR 1.7, 7.1) remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the need for structural changes to the system, including funding agency priorities and participation of researchers in practice- and policy-based experiences, which may enhance efforts to disseminate by researchers.
OBJECTIVES: We identified factors related to dissemination efforts by researchers to non-research audiences to reduce the gap between research generation and uptake in public health practice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 266 researchers at universities, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and CDC. We identified scientists using a search of public health journals and lists from government-sponsored research. The scientists completed a 35-item online survey in 2012. Using multivariable logistic regression, we compared self-rated effort to disseminate findings to non-research audiences (excellent/good vs. poor) across predictor variables in three categories: perceptions or reasons to disseminate, perceived expectation by employer/funders, and professional training and experience. RESULTS: One-third of researchers rated their dissemination efforts as poor. Many factors were significantly related to whether a researcher rated him/herself as excellent/good, including obligation to disseminate findings (odds ratio [OR] = 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1, 6.8), dissemination important for their department (OR=2.3, 95% CI 1.2, 4.5), dissemination expected by employer (OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.2) or by funder (OR=2.1, 95% CI 1.3, 3.2), previous work in a practice/policy setting (OR=4.4, 95% CI 2.1, 9.3), and university researchers with Prevention Research Center affiliation vs. NIH researchers (OR=4.7, 95% CI 1.4, 15.7). With all variables in the model, dissemination expected by funder (OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.1) and previous work in a practice/policy setting (OR=3.5, OR 1.7, 7.1) remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the need for structural changes to the system, including funding agency priorities and participation of researchers in practice- and policy-based experiences, which may enhance efforts to disseminate by researchers.
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: Mandi S Newton; Carole A Estabrooks; Peter Norton; Judy M Birdsell; Adeniyi J Adewale; Richard Thornley Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2007-01-04 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Brendan T Heiden; Emmanuel Tetteh; Keenan J Robbins; Rachel G Tabak; Ruben G Nava; Gary F Marklin; Daniel Kreisel; Bryan F Meyers; Benjamin D Kozower; Virginia R McKay; Varun Puri Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 5.102
Authors: Jennifer Cunningham-Erves; Elizabeth Stewart; Jillian Duke; Sylvie A Akohoue; Nicole Rowen; Omaran Lee; Stephania T Miller Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Bethany M Kwan; Ross C Brownson; Russell E Glasgow; Elaine H Morrato; Douglas A Luke Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 21.870
Authors: Ross C Brownson; Enola K Proctor; Douglas A Luke; Ana A Baumann; Mackenzie Staub; Matthew T Brown; Mallory Johnson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Jingsong Zhao; Nageen Mir; Nicole Ackermann; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Mary C Politi Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 5.428