[Memorandum - research funding of prevention]. / Memorandum - Forschungsförderung Prävention.

The memorandum of the research funding of prevention has been devised within the framework of the Prevention Research Funding Programme of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. It consists not only of the obtained findings of the research-practice co-operation but also of recommendations for the implementation of prospective, innovational, effective, practice-oriented and sustainable research. The respective knowledge has been acquired from quantitative surveys on the experiences of scientists and practice partners within the prevention research funding project as well as from extensive qualitative methods of structured group evaluation. A participatory co-operation between research and practice based on mutual respect, trust and recognition is seen as mandatory for the further development of both prevention and health promotion research. Research and practice partners are required to engage in an ab initio collaboration starting from the conception phase, whereby it is advisable to encourage and fortify the communication between research, practice and funding partners by systematic surveillance in form of a meta-project. In addition, the inclusion of the target population from the outset and on a collaborative basis is considered as beneficial in order to ensure the practical application of the research findings. Furthermore, innovatory research designs which are able to provide a framework for internal flexibility, continuous re-assessment and adjustment are fundamental for the implementation of practice-oriented research. Moreover, a dynamic co-operation between different groups of interest not only depends on sharing responsibility but also on sufficient funding for both research and practice, which is particularly important for the transfer and communication of the attained findings. With regard to the evaluation of both effectiveness and sustainability of interventions, a research funding project is required which makes long-term results possible through the utilization of regulated monitoring and guarantees quality and continuous effectiveness. Furthermore, in order to stimulate progress within the basic theories of prevention and health promotion, it is also essential for a funding project to focus on elementary concepts. Additionally, for the efficient and sustainable development of health within a population it is advisable to apply both self-contained research and the involvement of primary prevention and health promotion to research projects concerning health, social affairs, education, work and environment.

[Knowledge transfer methods in German disease prevention and health promotion. A survey of experts in the federal prevention research program]. / Transfermethoden der deutschen Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. Eine Expertenbefragung im Förderschwerpunkt Präventionsforschung (BMBF).

AIM OF THE STUDY: This expert survey analyzed the application and perceived usefulness of knowledge transfer methods for disease prevention and health promotion research. METHODS: 302 experts from 70 administratively distinct projects sponsored under the German federal prevention research program received a questionnaire on transfer methods used for preparation, dissemination and implementation of their project results and the perceived expediency of these methods. 130 experts (43%) from 59 projects (84.3%) responded. 40% were cooperation partners from health care suppliers or practitioners, and 60% worked in research institutions. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA were used for data analysis. RESULTS: The experts had wide range of transfer methods at their disposal. The main implementation barriers were scarce funding and the complexity of disease prevention and health promotion programs. The predominant channels of dissemination were scientific media (congresses, journals) and the Internet. Manuals and handouts were the most common methods of processing of research results for facilitators. Regarding implementation, two-thirds of the projects conducted user training, integrated experts in program development, and co-operated with important institutions. Most of the transfer methods implemented were perceived as useful, but some rated as useful were rarely used, e. g. health economics and quality assurance in wide-scale rollout. There were no substantial rating differences between experts from research and user institutions. CONCLUSIONS: In view of the fundaments for the broad application of knowledge transfer technologies laid by prevention scientists, health care suppliers and decision-makers should support the transfer of prevention research, and precendence should be given to evidence-based programs with quality assurance in the implementation stages. Prevention researchers, in turn, should further develop health economics evidence and quality assurance for effective interventions. The rich skills available for knowledge transfer in disease prevention and health promotion can be systematically developed and disseminated in the future.