Dissemination and stakeholder engagement practices among dissemination & implementation scientists: Results from an online survey

Autoři: Christopher E. Knoepke aff001;  M. Pilar Ingle aff002;  Daniel D. Matlock aff002;  Ross C. Brownson aff005;  Russell E. Glasgow aff002
Působiště autorů: Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States of America aff001;  Adult and Child Consortium of Outcome Research and Delivery Science (ACCORDS), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States of America aff002;  Division of Geriatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States of America aff003;  VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Denver, CO, United States of America aff004;  Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States of America aff005;  Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States of America aff006
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216971



There has been an increasing focus on disseminating research findings, but less about practices specific to disseminating and engaging non-researchers. The present project sought to describe dissemination practices and engagement of stakeholders among dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists.


Methods to disseminate to and engage non-research stakeholders were assessed using an online survey sent to a broad, diverse sample of D&I scientists.


Surveys were received from 210 participants. The majority of respondents were from university or research settings in the United States. (69%) or Canada (13%), representing a mix of clinical (28%) and community settings (34%). 26% had received formal training in D&I. Respondents indicated routinely engaging in a variety of dissemination-related activities, with academic journal publications (88%), conference presentations (86%), and reports to funders (74%) being the most frequent. Journal publication was identified as the most impactful on respondents’ careers (94%), but face-to-face meetings with stakeholders were rated as most impactful on practice or policy (40%). Stakeholder involvement in research was common, with clinical and community-based researchers engaging stakeholder groups in broadly similar ways, but with critical differences noted between researchers with greater seniority, those with more D&I training, those based in the United States vs. Canada, and those in community vs. clinical research settings.


There have been increases in stakeholder engagement, but few other practices since the 2012 survey, and some differences across subgroups. Methods to engage different stakeholders deserve more in-depth investigation. D&I researchers report substantial misalignment of incentives and behaviors related to dissemination to non-research audiences.

Klíčová slova:

Canada – Health services research – Public and occupational health – Research funding – Scientific publishing – Scientists – Survey research – Surveys


1. Brownson RC, Jacobs JA, Tabak RG, Hoehner CM, Stamatakis KA. Designing for dissemination among public health researchers: findings from a national survey in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(9):1693–9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301165 23865659

2. Rabin BA, Brownson RC. Terminology fo dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA; Proctor EK, editors. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Research to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 22.

3. Kerner JF. Integrating research, practice, and policy: what we see depends on where we stand. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14(2):193–8. doi: 10.1097/01.PHH.0000311899.11197.db 18287927

4. Institute NC. Designing for Dissemination: Conference Summary Report. 2002.

5. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. 2nd Edition ed. Brownson RC, Coldtiz GA, Proctor EK, editors. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018.

6. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science. 2012;7(50).

7. Purtle JD, Dodson E, Browson RC. Policy dissemination research. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, editors. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. In press.

8. Rogers E. Lessons for Guidelines from the Diffusion of Innovations. Joint Commision J Qual Im. 1995;21(7):324–28.

9. Rabin BA, Brownso RC, Kerner JF, Glasgow RE. Methodologic challenges in disseminating evidence-based interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31:S24–34. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.06.009 16979467

10. Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI): national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA. 2012.

11. Lutz C, Hoffman C. The Impact of Social Media on Stakeholder Engagement. ICA Preconference “Governance through communication: stakeholder engagement, dialogue, and corporate social responsibility”; Edinburgh 2013.

12. Woolf SH, Zimmerman E, Haley A, Krist A. Authentic engagement of patients and communities can transform research, practice, and policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(4):590–94. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1512 27044956

13. Melssner HI, Glasgow RE, Vinson CA, Chambers D, Brownson RC, Green LW. The U.S. training institute for dissemination and implementation research in health. Implementation Science. 2013;8(12).

14. Brownson RC, Proctor EL, Luke DA, Baumann AA, Staub M, Brown MT, Johson M. Building capacity for dissemination and implementation research: one university’s experience. Implementation Science. 2017;12(1):104. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0634-4 28814328

15. Implementation Research Institute [Available from: http://iristl.org/]

16. Straus SE, Brouwers M, Johnson D, Lavis JN, Legare F, Majumdar SR, et al. Canada Training Initiative in Health Research (STIHR). Core competencies in the science and practice of knowledge translation: description of a Canadian strategic training initiative. Implementation Science. 2011(127).

17. Chambers DA, Proctor EK, Brownson RC, Straus SE. Mapping training needs for dissemination and implementation research: lessons from a synthesis of existing D&I research training programs. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(3):593–601. doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0399-3 27030472

18. Padek M, Mir N, Jacob RR, Chambers DA, Dobbins M, Emmons KM, et al. Training scholars in dissemination and implementation research for cancer prevention and control: a mentored approach. Implementation Science. 2018;13(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0711-3 29357876

19. Tabak RG, Stamatakis KA, Jacobs JA, Brownson RC. What predicts dissemination efforts among public health researchers in the United States? Public Health Rep. 2014;129(4):361–8. doi: 10.1177/003335491412900411 24982539

20. Brownson RC, Eyler AA, Harris JK, Moore JB, Tabak RG. Getting the Word Out: New Approached for Disseminating Public Health Science. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018;24(2):102–11. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000673 28885319

21. Brownson RC. Research translation and public health services & systems research. Keenland Conference: Public Health Services and Systems Research 2013; Lexington, KY.

22. Cargo M, Mercer SL. The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:325–50. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824 18173388

23. Jacob RR, Allen PM, Ahrendt LJ, Brownson RC. Learning about and using research evidence among public health practitioners. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(S):304–08.

24. Powell BJ, Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschr`oder LJ, Smith JL, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Science. 2015 Dec;10(1):21.

25. Jecker NS, Meslin EM. United States and Canadian approaches to justice in health care: a comparative analysis of health care systems and values. Theor Med. 1994 Jun 1;15(2):181–200. doi: 10.1007/bf00994024 7997972

26. Globerman S, Hodges H, Vining A. Canadian and US health care systems performance and governance: elements of convergence. App Health Econ Health Pol. 2001 Jan 14;1(2):75–88.

27. Brownson RC, Royer C, Ewing R, McBride TD. Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(2):164–72. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.10.004 16459216

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 11