RESUMEN
Background: The field of dissemination and implementation science has the potential to narrow the translational research-to-practice gap and improve the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within community-based settings. Yet, foundational research related to dissemination efforts, such as understanding researcher attitudes, practices, and the determinants to sharing research findings, is lacking within extant literature. Methods: A sequential explanatory (QUANqual) mixed methods design was used to examine 85 academic researchers' perspectives and self-reported dissemination methods used to share research outcomes with community stakeholders to better understand researcher's usual dissemination practices (referred to as dissemination-as-usual). Quantitative surveys collected researcher demographic data, attitudes toward dissemination efforts, and dissemination strategy use. Results: Multiple linear regression examined predictors of the quantity of dissemination strategies utilized by researchers, finding that years since earning their degree, time spent disseminating, and the number of reasons for engaging in dissemination efforts predicted greater numbers of dissemination strategies utilized by researchers. Individual, semi-structured interviews with a subset of researchers (n = 18) expanded upon quantitative findings, identifying barriers and facilitators to their dissemination efforts. Data strands were integrated using a joint display, and the Dissemination of Research model guided data interpretation. More established researchers experienced fewer barriers and more facilitators to support their use of a variety of dissemination strategies to share findings with community stakeholders. However, researchers reported needing specific training, institutional support, and/or dedicated time to plan and enact dissemination strategies. Conclusion: The necessary first step in research translation is the dissemination of research evidence, and understanding dissemination-as-usual can identify areas of need to advance translational science.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the preferences of patients with metastatic cancer regarding notification of imaging results, as well as distress surrounding the process. METHODS: On imaging day, preferences for notification, expectations of results, health literacy, and social support were measured. After receiving results, patients reported on actual delivery methods. At both times, patients were screened for overall distress, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: The majority of patients preferred notification within 2 days and during a face-to-face visit with their oncologist. Although levels of distress, anxiety, and depression were low, patients with higher anxiety, depression, and social isolation had higher distress. There was no correlation between absolute distress levels and agreement between notification preferences and actual delivery methods. Receiving results from a preferred provider was associated with a decrease in distress from imaging day to follow-up. Face-to-face delivery of results was more important to people with lower health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: While distress regarding the receipt of results was low, it was higher for some groups of patients. Attending to the preferences of these subgroups may help to minimize distress. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Receiving results from preferred personnel and diminishing patients' sense of social isolation might provide psychological benefit during the period surrounding imaging.
