Designing for dissemination among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA.

Introduction: The slow adoption of evidence-based interventions reflects gaps in effective dissemination of research evidence. Existing studies examining designing for dissemination (D4D), a process that ensures interventions and implementation strategies consider adopters' contexts, have focused primarily on researchers, with limited perspectives of practitioners. To address these gaps, this study examined D4D practice among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among public health and primary care practitioners in April to June 2022 (analyzed in July 2022 to December 2022). Both groups were recruited through national-level rosters. The survey was informed by previous D4D studies and pretested using cognitive interviewing. Results: Among 577 respondents, 45% were public health and 55% primary care practitioners, with an overall survey response rate of 5.5%. The most commonly ranked sources of research evidence were email announcements for public health practitioners (43.7%) and reading academic journals for clinical practitioners (37.9%). Practitioners used research findings to promote health equity (67%) and evaluate programs/services (66%). A higher proportion of clinical compared to public health practitioners strongly agreed/agreed that within their work setting they had adequate financial resources (36% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) and adequate staffing (36% vs. 24%, p = 0.001) to implement research findings. Only 20% of all practitioners reported having a designated individual or team responsible for finding and disseminating research evidence. Conclusions: Addressing both individual and modifiable barriers, including organizational capacity to access and use research evidence, may better align the efforts of researchers with priorities and resources of practitioners.

Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: A Scoping Review.

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact. This study documents a scoping review of published methods used for identifying health research gaps, establishing research needs, and determining research priorities and provides relevant information on 362 studies. Of the 362 studies, 167 were linked to funding decisionmaking and underwent a more detailed data abstraction process. The authors noted that most studies focused on physical health conditions, but few addressed psychological health conditions. The most frequent method for identifying research gaps, needs, and priorities was to convene workshops or conferences. One-third of studies employed quantitative methods, and nearly as many used the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships approach. Other methods included literature reviews, qualitative methods, consensus methods, and reviews of source materials. The criterion most widely applied to determine health research gaps, needs, and priorities was the importance to stakeholders, followed by the potential value and feasibility of carrying out the research. The two largest stakeholder groups were researchers and clinicians. More than one-half the studies involved patients and the public as stakeholders. Very few studies have evaluated the impact of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities. This study provides a roadmap of methods used for identifying health research gaps, needs, and priorities, which may help accelerate progress toward validating methods that ensure the effective targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and to maximize impact.

Communicating research evidence to boards in health and care organisations: A scoping study.

Boards in health and care organisations in England play a key role in the governance, strategy, direction and culture of an organisation. It is therefore important to ensure that board decisions are informed by the best available evidence from a range of sources, including service evaluations, organisational performance data, research and evidence-based guidelines. However, there is a scarcity of evidence about how boards use research evidence, defined as evidence stemming from generalisable empirical research, to carry out their roles. THIS Institute commissioned RAND Europe and the Health Services Management Centre (HSMC) at the University of Birmingham to conduct a scoping study on how health and care boards use research evidence. The focus was on NHS Trust boards and the boards of Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) or Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). The principal data collection method was qualitative interviews with diverse members of health and care boards to obtain insights into the perceptions and experiences of board members in a range of roles and circumstances. The findings are predominantly based on evidence from 17 interviews. Given the importance of the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of this research, we were also asked to consider whether and how research evidence was used by boards in shaping their response to COVID-19. We focused on two areas specifically: (i) personal protective equipment (PPE) and (ii) the use of remote consultations and remote patient monitoring.

Provider Interventions to Increase Uptake of Evidence-Based Treatment for Depression: A Systematic Review.

The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the effectiveness of health care provider interventions that aim to increase the uptake of evidence-based treatment of depression in routine clinical practice. This study summarizes results of comprehensive searches in the quality improvement, implementation science, and behavior change literature. Studies evaluated diverse provider interventions such as sending out depression guidelines to providers, education and training such as academic detailing, and combinations of education with other components such as targeting implementation barriers. A detailed critical appraisal process assessed risk of bias and study quality. The body of evidence was graded using established evidence synthesis criteria. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials promoting uptake of clinical practice guidelines and guideline-concordant practices met inclusion criteria. Results were heterogeneous and analyses comparing interventions with usual clinical practice did not indicate a statistically significant difference in guideline adherence across studies. There was some evidence that interventions improved individual outcomes such as medication prescribing and indirect comparisons indicated that more complex interventions may be associated with more favorable outcomes. However, we did not identify types of interventions that were consistently associated with improvements across indicators of guideline adherence and across studies. Due to the small number of studies reporting team interventions or approaches tested in specialty care we did not identify robust evidence that effects vary by provider group or setting. Low quality of evidence and lack of replication of specific intervention strategies limited conclusions that can be drawn from the existing research.

Improving Population Health Through an Innovative Collaborative: The Be There San Diego Data for Quality Group.

In 2012, leaders from disparate health care organizations established a data group aligned around a regional goal of preventing heart attacks and strokes in San Diego. The group---now named the Be There San Diego Data for Quality (DFQ) Group---is a safe venue for medical directors and other quality-improvement leaders to share performance data on quality-of-care measures for diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease, as well as insights, lessons learned, and challenges faced by each organization in treating these conditions. The DFQ Group has focused its efforts on improving the quality of services provided by each participating health care organization, and has placed a strong emphasis on analyzing trends in combined quality data to better understand the health of the entire San Diego population. By fostering collaboration among organizations that collectively serve a large portion of the local population and other key community stakeholders, the DFQ Group has helped form the foundation of a unique, multifaceted, multi-stakeholder, regional effort that is gaining national attention and funding for its community-driven approach.