Moving beyond annual data reports: A blueprint for communicating and disseminating actionable intelligence.

Identifying and disseminating actionable intelligence is a challenging task that requires thoughtful planning. The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences instituted the Common Metrics Initiative with the goal of evaluating the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Programs using a standard set of metrics. Initially managed by Tufts University, the Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration (CLIC) at the University of Rochester began leading this initiative in 2017. In directing this work, CLIC created a framework for communicating and disseminating data insights. Insights to Inspire emerged from the need to share strategies and lessons learned to improve metric performance at the local level to a network of 60+ academic research institutions. Insights to Inspire employs a mixed methods approach for translating data into actionable intelligence. A series of blogs, webinars, and webcasts were designed to communicate metric-specific strategies used by individual sites to the broader CTSA consortium. A dissemination plan to expand the reach beyond metric stakeholders utilized focused communications including social media channels, network newsletters, and presentations at national meetings. This framework serves as a blueprint for other national evaluation programs interested in a systematic approach to using data insights for continuous improvement.

A network analysis of dissemination and implementation research expertise across a university: Central actors and expertise clusters.

Background: Although dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is a growing field, many health researchers with relevant D&I expertise do not self-identify as D&I researchers. The goal of this work was to analyze the distribution, clustering, and recognition of D&I expertise in an academic institution. Methods: A snowball survey was administered to investigators at University of Rochester with experience and/or interest in D&I research. The respondents were asked to identify their level of D&I expertise and to nominate others who were experienced and/or active in D&I research. We used social network analysis to examine nomination networks. Results: Sixty-eight participants provided information about their D&I expertise. Thirty-eight percent of the survey respondents self-identified as D&I researchers, 24% as conducting D&I under different labels, and 38% were familiar with D&I concepts. D&I researchers were, on average, the most central actors in the network (nominated most by other survey participants) and had the highest within-group density, indicating wide recognition by colleagues and among themselves. Researchers who applied D&I under different labels had the highest within-group reciprocity (25%), and the highest between-group reciprocity (29%) with researchers familiar with D&I. Participants significantly tended to nominate peers within their departments and within their expertise categories. Conclusions: Identifying and engaging unrecognized clusters of expertise related to D&I research may provide opportunities for mutual learning and dialog and will be critical to bridging across departmental and topic area silos and building capacity for D&I in academic settings.

Linking dissemination and implementation science to Learning Health Systems: Opportunities for Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions.

Learning Health Systems (LHS) iteratively implement and evaluate health improvement projects. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is the study of evidence-based practices in real-world settings, a critical tool for LHS. This paper explores intersections between LHS and D&I science in Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) institutions and identifies critical components of collaboration. We conducted website scans of 34 CTSAs and their home institutions that had Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Translation (DIKT) Workgroup members. We identified linkages between CTSAs and their institutions' LHS. We interviewed six CTSA leaders experienced in LHS and D&I sciences. Nearly half of CTSAs identified an LHS structure on their websites, but only one-third indicates CTSA involvement in these efforts. Interviewees identified key components for successful integration of LHS and D&I sciences: leadership, infrastructure, balance between rigor and efficiency, and aligned incentives. The need for research integration in LHS, to improve evaluation and increase knowledge, is an emerging opportunity for D&I scientists and CTSAs. CTSAs that are engaged in D&I science can introduce and/or expand the role of D&I science in LHS. Collaboration between CTSAs and clinical leaders could result in strengthened relationships between clinical and research enterprises, effective and efficient health care delivery, and improved health.