The Blank Has Been a Art of the National Efforts to Disseminate Evidence Based Programs
Am J Public Health. 2012 July; 102(seven): 1274–1281.
National Institutes of Health Approaches to Dissemination and Implementation Science: Current and Hereafter Directions
Russell E. Glasgow, PhD, 
Cynthia Vinson, MPA, David Chambers, DPhil, Muin J. Khoury, Medico, PhD, Robert M. Kaplan, PhD, and Christine Hunter, PhD
Accustomed February 21, 2012.
Abstract
To address the vast gap between current cognition and practice in the area of dissemination and implementation enquiry, we address terminology, provide examples of successful applications of this research, discuss key sources of support, and highlight directions and opportunities for hereafter advances. There is a need for research testing approaches to scaling up and sustaining constructive interventions, and we propose that further advances in the field will be accomplished by focusing broadcasting and implementation research on v core values: rigor and relevance, efficiency, collaboration, improved chapters, and cumulative knowledge.
Despite the demonstrable benefits of many new medical discoveries, we have done a surprisingly poor job of putting enquiry findings into practice. The ultimate goal of new discoveries is to enhance human health, yet almost discoveries are irksome to or never fulfill this hope. The challenge of moving health research innovations from discovery to do is complex and multifaceted.1 For example, in clinical exercise, modernistic medications that dissolve blood clots are 1 of the best illustrations of efficacious medical care.2 Notwithstanding, substantial portions of the population who could benefit from these medicines practice not receive them.
In addition, although the most recent evidence suggests that approximately 80% of people with hypertension are aware that they have this problem, just about 70% of these individuals receive handling, and but about 50% have their blood force per unit area controlled even in the curt to medium term.three This suggests that only nigh half of people with high blood pressure are beingness successfully treated, apart from consideration of the challenging problems associated with long-term medication adherence.
The disconnect betwixt the percentage of those who could potentially benefit from an evidence-based therapy and those who actually do do good appears across all areas of health,4–6 with the concluding percentage of those benefitting from an efficacious intervention often being as low equally 1% to 5%.seven The challenges for public wellness practice are similar. Every bit but ane instance, only about 65% of individuals older than 65 years have received the pneumococcal vaccine despite evidence that it offers life-extending protection for the elderly.viii
BALANCING DISCOVERY WITH IMPLEMENTATION
How many human being wellness gains could be achieved by decreasing the gap between optimal treatment and what patients actually receive? According to Woolf and Johnson,9 an experimental trial showed that putting red notices on the front end of medical charts that simply reminded practitioners well-nigh guidelines for cholesterol treatment resulted in initiation of or increases in proper drug use in 94% of patients. By comparing, just 10% of patients in a randomized command grouping initiated or improved their use of medication.10 Similar points have been fabricated recently past Gawande on how checklists take improved surgical practise.11
Notwithstanding the significant advances in treatments, the public wellness benefits associated with these improved treatments tend to be modest because they are not widely implemented. Wlodarczyk et al.,12 for instance, conducted a meta-analysis of 25 head-to-head studies comparing the cholesterol-lowering drugs rosuvastatin and atorvastatin. The studies reviewed, all randomized clinical trials, involved more than twenty 000 participants. Aggregated beyond studies, there was only a small advantage of rosuvastatin with respect to lowering cholesterol. Weng et al.13 systematically reviewed head-to-head randomized comparisons of statin medications and found that, although the difference was statistically pregnant, powerful new statins had only a 7% advantage over established statins in lowering cholesterol. Furthermore, there was insufficient prove that the new medications resulted in incremental reductions in coronary events. Notwithstanding, increasing the accomplish and consistent use of statins in general (or even aspirin) tin have a profound result on heart attacks and deaths.14
As argued by Woolf and Johnson,ix the return on investment for dissemination and implementation research dwarfs the return on investment for new discovery. In the current federal research model, basic biomedical and behavioral research accounts for the lion'due south share of funding. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has traditionally been committed to discovery and spends about $30 billion each year on bones and efficacy research. Funding for dissemination and implementation research has traditionally been small, and although NIH funding for such research is growing, information technology remains a very small fraction of spending on basic and efficacy research.
In 2010, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality spent only nigh $270 million on enquiry relevant to health quality, dissemination, and outcomes. In other words, for each dollar spent in discovery, mere pennies are spent learning how interventions known to be effective can be better disseminated. Discovery of new and improved interventions is of import; to fully realize public health benefits, however, greater attention needs to exist devoted to broadcasting and implementation sciences to enhance the reach, adoption, implementation, use, and maintenance of new research discoveries.4,15
This article is a collaboration among NIH scientists involved in major enquiry, funding, grooming, and partnership efforts in dissemination and implementation. Information technology is not a comprehensive review of the field but an explication of current and future directions. Also, it is not an official NIH position paper and represents simply our individual opinions. We briefly discuss terminology and provide examples of successful applications of dissemination and implementation scientific discipline, describe NIH support for this area of research, and highlight current directions and opportunities for future advances.
Terminology
As is mutual in emerging areas of science, there are different perspectives on the precise definitions and terminology within dissemination and implementation science. There are several related definitions that differ in terms of their relative accent on specific bug. Although, as a result of space limitations, we cannot discuss these issues comprehensively, note that there are of import commonalities across the different definitions (come across Rabin and Glasgow16). All the same, information technology is important to understand how NIH currently defines broadcasting and implementation.
For present purposes, we adopted the definitions in the NIH plan announcement on broadcasting and implementation enquiry.17 Broadcasting is defined equally:
the targeted distribution of data and intervention materials to a specific public wellness or clinical practice audience. The intent is to spread knowledge and the associated evidence-based interventions.
The active process of dissemination is distinguished from the more passive process of "naturalistic" diffusion that occurs without concerted promotion.18 Implementation is "the apply of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence-based health interventions and modify practice patterns inside specific settings."
This latter definition is congruent with that used by the leading international journal in the field, Implementation Science, which defines implementation every bit "the methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings and other prove-based practices into routine practise and hence improve the quality and effectiveness of wellness intendance."19 Effectiveness research, which assesses how an intervention that has demonstrated efficacy functions in practice, is a related concept only is not our main focus here. Effectiveness enquiry is like to dissemination and implementation research in its accent on adaptation and testing in real-world settings and diverse populations, only it does non explicitly focus on understanding the spread and adoption of these intervention strategies.
We believe that effectiveness research and dissemination and implementation research are much stronger in tandem than as separate areas of research. Effectiveness research is stronger if it anticipates and includes issues related to broadcasting and implementation processes such equally adoption decisions and implementation questions within intervention testing, and broadcasting or implementation research is stronger if information technology assesses continued effectiveness equally interventions or prevention approaches spread to and are adopted past big, diverse populations.
In addition, reducing dissemination and implementation research to a question of the effectiveness of interventions when they are tested in clinical and community settings omits the multilevel nature of the successful integration of handling and preventive strategies within practice. Dissemination and implementation research requires attending non simply to the individual but to the staff and organisation delivering an intervention, the financial and political environs through which services are provided, and the broader societal context through which population health is derived. Successes in dissemination and implementation occur through the development of strategies that facilitate practice improvements,20 organizational modify,21 and policy implementation.22 Successful integration of research into practice or policy requires partnership approaches and team scientific discipline,23 practical interventions,24 greater cost-effectiveness, an increased focus on external validity and reach, and reductions in health disparities.25–27
Despite these areas of consensus, there is ongoing word about the number of stages involved in translational enquiry; the value of a linear progression from basic science to efficacy research and effectiveness studies, big-calibration demonstrations, and, finally, dissemination; the role and necessity of using nonrandomized controlled trial designs28–30; and other conceptual issues relating to how all-time to frame this of import evolving area.
Recognizing that that there are a number of ways to frame the stages of translational research, we propose five central phases in the process of moving enquiry into practice and policy.31,32 Focusing on these phases, each of which addresses dissimilar problems and requires somewhat different methods, provides greater clarity about what is needed if evidence-based approaches are to be successfully implemented and sustained in existent-world settings. Enquiry is non a one-style process: findings at each stage inform findings in the other stages. Rather than a linear procedure of translating enquiry findings into practice, nosotros propose a more differentiated approach to the science of broadcasting and implementation, every bit illustrated in Figure 1.
Knowledge integration process.
Source. Modified from Khoury et al.31
Equally shown, there are five overlapping, interrelated phases of research in advancing from scientific discoveries to population wellness. Any terms are used for these phases and whether public health or medical problems are nether consideration, the diagram illustrates the highly iterative nature of the bicycle from discovery to translation. The process starts with the identification of a problem and the "discovery" of an opportunity or arroyo to tackle a wellness issue (T0). These discoveries can result from multiple sources and disciplines such as molecular or biological insights, behavioral research, or epidemiological enquiry.
The first translational enquiry phase (T1) involves research allowing for the development of tests or other clinical interventions, but it can also pb to nonmedical interventions such as policy, behavioral, social, or other public wellness interventions. The second research phase (T2) involves a rigorous analysis and investigation of whether the new interventions ameliorate health outcomes (in randomized trials or other study designs). The stop result of T2 is testify-based guidelines and recommendations by professional organizations and contained panels. (NIH ofttimes focuses primarily on T1 and T2 enquiry, usually in the context of drug and other clinical interventions, and incorporates all T2–T4 activities under T2.33)
However, fifty-fifty in the case of medical procedures and other interventions, such activities include dissemination of interventions, decisions by wellness care practitioners or organizations to adopt or utilize the interventions, implementation of the interventions into standard do or standard operating procedures of organizations, and maintenance of changes in health care practices by organizations, private health care practitioners, and patients. Dissemination and implementation science emphasizes investigation and agreement of the processes involved in the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of research.
An incomplete classification of translation can miss important and qualitatively unlike tasks and issues involved in "later-stage" translation. We focus primarily on such later-stage translation or, as nosotros term it, broadcasting and implementation science; we do not address in any particular problems associated with moving from discovery to drug development, an area worthy of its own discussion.33 T3 research includes investigations designed to increment uptake and implementation of evidence-based recommendations into practise, whereas T4 research involves evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such interventions in the "real globe" and in diverse populations. Many discoveries may motion rapidly through this wheel or skip steps, may become adopted before others, and may be put in utilise before prove-based recommendations are made. Yet, many discoveries never reach the point of becoming standards of care.26,34
Our 5-phase model illustrates the complication of large-calibration uptake and the opportunity to address this issue through partnerships betwixt medicine and public wellness,35 and it implies transdisciplinary team interactions23 among bones, clinical, and population sciences. T4 research should also lead to new insights that will fuel new discoveries (e.thousand., postmarketing surveillance of drugs tin uncover new teratogenic or carcinogenic agents). Finally, as can exist seen in Figure ane, the translation cycle is guided by ongoing and updated noesis synthesis, with structured reviews of the status of science to guide implementation and large-scale dissemination research.
Broadcasting and Implementation Successes
Although there is a long history at NIH of applied inquiry with a focus on diffusion of innovations and bug such as institutionalization, the specific broadcasting and implementation research portfolio at NIH is relatively new and comprises a small proportion of biomedical research funding. Notwithstanding, there accept already been noticeable successes. For case, Lorig et al. have conducted a series of studies of their 6-week chronic disease self-management grooming plan, most oft delivered by peer coleaders who themselves have 1 or more than chronic illnesses.36,37 Originally evaluated in randomized studies with arthritis patients, versions of the program have been found to be successful in controlled evaluations amidst Spanish-speaking diabetes patients and those with multiple chronic illnesses; information technology has been successfully delivered via the Internet as well.38,39 The Lorig et al. plan has been implemented across full general practice settings throughout the Britain.forty In addition, their evidence-based model of goal setting, peer support, activity planning, and follow-upwards has been adapted for and replicated beyond diverse weather condition and settings.
Another example is the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). Following a successful multisite efficacy trial,41 several investigative teams have explored efficient, practical methods of replicating the results in existent-globe customs settings. For instance, Katula et al.42 institute that a lifestyle intervention that was based on the DPP and delivered past community health workers resulted in impressive 1-year glucose and weight changes. Other researchers,43 partnering with the national YMCA to offer an adaptation of the DPP lifestyle intervention, achieved changes in weight similar to those observed in the DPP. This piece of work illustrates the importance of adapting interventions to fit delivery contexts.
With respect to tobacco abeyance, the widely replicated state "quit line" programs (see reviews in the December 2007 special issue of Tobacco Control 44) have probably produced more than public wellness benefits than whatever other dissemination plan. Based on years of successful, smaller scale research every bit well every bit pioneering statewide applications in California and Massachusetts, proactive telephone-based abeyance counseling has proven not but price-effective but too viable to integrate with main care, mass media promotions, and pharmacological interventions.44 This tobacco example illustrates the importance of big-scale natural experiments and the importance of consistent implementation combined with incentives to produce population change.
NIH Support for Dissemination and Implementation Research
NIH has been working to advance the noesis base of operations related to disseminating and implementing evidence-based health strategies in real-world settings. These efforts include funding of investigator-initiated applications and targeted activities to build capacity in this surface area. Since 2000, private NIH institutes accept established dissemination and implementation portfolios, issuing independent funding announcements to solicit applications on the optimal ways to translate research into practice.
A need for trans-NIH opportunities has too been recognized. In 2003, the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Science Inquiry (OBSSR) convened a trans-NIH commission around this emerging area of research. In 2005, NIH issued the first set of multi-establish programme announcements on broadcasting and implementation enquiry, covering small grant, exploratory or developmental grant, and research project grant mechanisms. Eight institutes participated along with OBSSR and the Office of Dietary Supplements. Over the adjacent 4 years, 40 dissemination and implementation grants were funded through these programme announcements.
Another four institutes were added when the programme announcements were reissued in 2009, and in that location was increased attention to global wellness with the participation of the Fogarty International Center (international investigators can be primary investigators in this area of grants). As a effect of the growing number of applications and investments in broadcasting and implementation research, the NIH Center for Scientific Review established a standing review commission, Dissemination and Implementation Research in Wellness, in 2010.
Dissemination and implementation research at NIH is at present linked to one of the goals included in the strategic program of the US Section of Health and Human being Services: to identify fundamental factors influencing the scaling upwards of research-tested interventions across big networks of service systems, such as main care, specialty care, and customs practice, by 2015.45 NIH reports quarterly to the secretarial assistant of the Department of Health and Human Services on progress toward this goal, further evidence of the importance to this agency of advancing dissemination and implementation scientific discipline.
At NIH, there has too been a marked growth in overall interest in the field. Since 2007, NIH has held an annual conference on the scientific discipline of dissemination and implementation at which research findings are presented and topics are discussed for farther development. The first conference, which showcased NIH-funded research, was attended by some 300 people. Starting with the 2nd conference, NIH issued a call for abstracts and counterbalanced original research presentations, symposia, and organized think tanks with plenary sessions effectually an almanac conference theme. The 5th conference, held in March 2012 in partnership with the U.s.a. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), had more than 1200 registrants and reflected on the progress made in contempo years to develop dissemination and implementation science, spotlighting the promise of technology and policy in population health benefit. Each of the annual conferences has too afforded researchers a chance to receive grant writing assistance from NIH staff and funded researchers. The 2011 briefing technical assistance workshop was attended by approximately 100 participants.
To farther build research capacity, OBSSR, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the VA sponsored the weeklong Grooming Plant for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health in Baronial 2011 to provide in-depth training for researchers interested in moving into the field. Contingent on hereafter budgets, the intent is to brand this an annual preparation opportunity. Finally, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases has launched the Centers for Diabetes Translation Inquiry, which will straight support rigorous translation inquiry aimed at prevention and improved treatment of diabetes. These examples are not comprehensive merely reflect the commitment of NIH to railroad train researchers in undertaking studies that remainder rigor with relevance and in using designs and methods appropriate for the complex processes involved in dissemination and implementation.
KEY OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVANCE DISSEMINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH
Broadcasting and implementation research is at a crossroads. To move the field forward, information technology will be of import to focus on the following fundamental opportunities.
Scaling Up and Sustainability
There has been progress in the quality, quantity, and telescopic of dissemination and implementation research. However, truthful return on enquiry investment requires improvements in the adoption and implementation of constructive interventions within discrete clinical and community settings. It requires advances in 2 additional dimensions likewise: scaling upwards and sustainability.
Given the diversity of health care settings in the United States, a primal challenge is understanding how best to calibration up successful interventions to regional, national, or international levels.40,46 There are notable examples, including the DPP initiatives mentioned earlier and the Centers for Illness Command and Prevention'due south Diffusion of Constructive Behavioral Interventions project, which provides training and technical aid on selected evidence-based sexually transmitted disease prevention interventions. Enthusiastic nigh results from efficacy trials, practitioners often want to disseminate results without further research. Yet, a great deal of do good can exist "lost in translation." In public health, examples of scaling up include universal assessments or screenings such as measurement of blood pressure at primary intendance visits, vaccinations, and regular Papanicolau test screening. Despite some successes, piffling evidence exists to recommend optimal strategies for constructive large-calibration rollout. We encourage studies designed to tackle this important research question.
Sustainability is the long-term integration of effective interventions within specific settings. Although implementation is meaningful only if program and policy results can be sustained, limited information exist on how to maintain changes. Sustainability is ordinarily viewed either as exogenous ("What will happen one time a study ends?") or as a discrete postimplementation phase ("Twelve months later the implementation, we examined whether alter had been sustained"). Current efficacy inquiry is inadequate to effectively inform real-earth practice, and indeed contempo manufactures have noted the need to consider explicitly a sustainability stage wherein bear witness-based interventions are reexamined to determine how well they fit within the structure and workflow of the organizations where they are delivered.47 Nosotros encourage longitudinal observational studies to examine the course of effective interventions one time implemented, as well equally prospective trials to test sustainability strategies in generalizable populations and settings.
To advance these opportunities, as well as the broader field of broadcasting and implementation research, nosotros suggest that the adjacent generation of dissemination and implementation inquiry studies be anchored around 5 core tenets: rigor and relevance, efficiency and speed, collaboration, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge (Tabular array one ).
TABLE 1—
Core Broadcasting and Implementation Values and Example Activities
| Core Value | Central Opportunities |
| Rigor and relevance | Studies focused on diverse, low-resources settings |
| Recognition of the importance of culling research designs—simulation modeling, pragmatic trials, rapid learning studies, and systematic studies combined with environmental and community information—to accost important public wellness challenges | |
| Efficiency and speed | Limited funding for large-calibration, multisite randomized controlled trials requires a shift to research designs that access existing and expanding data sets |
| Growth in the availability of electronic health record information nether new meaningful utilise guidelines | |
| Rapid learning wellness care systems and organizations | |
| Collaboration | Team science |
| Customs/clinical partnerships through community-based participatory enquiry | |
| Clinical and Translational Science Awards | |
| Improved chapters | Training Institute for Dissemination and Implementation Inquiry in Health |
| E-learning | |
| Web 2.0 social networking | |
| Cumulative noesis | Emerging textbooks to consolidate knowledge |
| Source materials in diverse fields |
Rigor and Relevance
Many of the current approaches to dissemination and implementation as well as comparative effectiveness research48,49 are limited in scope and applicability, underemphasizing the value of context and health services research and often focusing solely on drugs and devices.50 We know that no more than than twenty% of the variation in wellness outcomes is affected by the medical care system. The other 80% is adamant by factors exterior the system, including social and environmental influences.35 Dissemination and implementation research needs to investigate these factors, include diverse and low-resource settings, and recognize the necessity for nonrandomized experimental designs in answering crucial systems and public health questions.
Traditional randomized command trials focused on efficacy and effectiveness have advantages with respect to internal validity and testing of treatments under optimal atmospheric condition, but they are less beneficial in terms of external validity, relevance to many complex health care questions, and corporeality of time needed to produce answers.28,51–53 Culling enquiry designs and approaches should be considered. 1 example in the expanse of health care is well-controlled "rapid learning" studies (eastward.g., "plan, exercise, study, act" written report cycles54) based on electronic wellness records (EHRs) from thousands of patients receiving care in existent-world settings.55,56 Simulation modeling57 studies, along with longitudinal observational studies, are also needed to address calibration up and sustainability.
With the availability of linked community health indicators, geospatial methodologies will make the utilize of alternative designs more feasible and robust given the explosion of publicly available and actionable data under Open Regime Platform initiatives. This is particularly relevant for dissemination and implementation research, given that the goal is to permit diverse populations to benefit from interventions rather than to orchestrate optimal yet unsustainable exercise weather condition solely for research purposes. As evidenced past the findings from an NIH methodology briefing published in 200729 and recent comparative effectiveness enquiry meetings, methods need to fit the question and non vice versa.
Furthermore, the availability of such data is probable to dramatically change the way research is done. There may be fewer prospective studies involving new data collection. Replacing them volition be systematic studies that involve information acquired as part of the wellness care procedure, combined with social, ecology, and customs data from other sources. The major need is to develop methodologies that allow us to harmonize and integrate the enormous amount of data becoming bachelor.58 Engineering science sciences and other recent examples (e.g., Community Health Status Indicators) demonstrate that these methodologies and practical tools can be created. For case, vast amounts of data can be speedily collated and summarized in dashboard applications. Even so, nosotros need new analytic methods to allow appropriate analyses and meaningful use of these big amounts of data. Methods are needed to guide detection of signal to noise or risk findings in such enormous data sets, to handle huge amounts of longitudinal data, and to guard confronting inappropriate inferences.
Efficiency and Speed
Funding for future large-scale, multisite randomized clinical trials is likely to be limited, partly as a outcome of fiscal issues simply also because of the need for new methods that can more apace inform wellness care do. NIH has limited chapters to fund large-calibration evaluations of the always-increasing plethora of promising wellness care therapies, devices, and practices. However, as noted before, data that can inform decisions virtually treatment effectiveness and degree of implementation within care settings volition be abundant. Currently, near half of all U.s. providers employ EHRs.59 In the side by side few years, this percentage is expected to increase to eighty%. This means that information will be available on hundreds of millions of existent-earth medical encounters betwixt typical patients and typical wellness care teams in settings with typical constraints. Although at that place are some limitations, data from these encounters can help inform the effectiveness and implementation of health intendance interventions.
NIH, in conjunction with the Society of Behavioral Medicine, sponsored a workshop in May 2011 to identify standard patient-reported wellness behavior and psychosocial data elements that could exist routinely collected in EHRs. Development of a consensus on this issue could be an important stride in moving toward a big, harmonized database of information gathered from individuals in naturally occurring wellness care encounters and would also back up both patient-centered care60,61 and population-based research.
One common health service inquiry finding is substantial variability in treatments provided across different settings.62 For instance, patients in Los Angeles are likely to receive much more than aggressive and expensive treatments than demographically and geographically equivalent patients in San Diego.63 Comparisons of such variations in health care reflect ongoing "natural" dissemination and implementation experiments. Although these are not randomized designs, equivalent populations are receiving different treatments on a quasi-random basis. It may be possible, through the apply of EHR data, to make valid inferences about implementation strategies that are used with some providers and not others, especially when results are replicated across multiple states, health care systems, and populations. This new science can be more than rapid and efficient, considerably less expensive, and more contextually relevant.28,64
Collaboration
To advance to the next level, new dissemination and implementation research–exercise collaborations are required amid health care researchers, economists, data scientists, biostatisticians, and most important key stakeholders, including citizens and practitioners who will need to implement and will be affected by innovations.65 Addressing the substantial public health challenges we face volition require team science66 and a blending of clinical, public health, and customs research to a greater extent than always before. The Clinical and Translational Scientific discipline Awards should provide fertile laboratories for such research, equally do diverse enquiry networks such as the VA, the HMO Research Network, and the NIH-supported Cancer Research Network, Cardiovascular Research Network, and Mental Health Inquiry Network. The growing need for team science will necessitate changes in academic systems to business relationship for the fourth dimension and challenges of developing these collaborations and recognize the importance of dissemination and implementation science.67
Improved Capacity
Despite the promise of emerging methodological and belittling approaches, many dissemination and implementation methods are not widely known or understood. The next generation of scientists is now beingness trained, merely not in methods relevant to dissemination and implementation science such equally EHR data interpretation or designs that can produce rapid, replicable, and relevant solutions to real-world problems. There is a pressing need to brand these methods available to traditional scientists, scientists in training, and key stakeholders in settings such as primary care clinics, customs hospitals, wellness care plans, workplaces, community-based organizations, and voluntary wellness associations. NIH grooming efforts such equally the earlier-mentioned Training Institute for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health are important initial steps, only much more is needed.
In detail, an investment in e-learning and other online and Web ii.0 social media is needed to produce a new generation of scientists with this expertise and to provide retraining for established scientists. Both the Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative in the United States and the Knowledge Translation Canada network have splendid grooming and ongoing support programs in implementation science; to substantially advance this scientific area, however, more such opportunities are needed to train practitioners, researchers, and policymakers.
To fully realize the potential for public health touch on, systems for delivering evidence-based approaches must exist expanded and efforts must be made to increase demand by both practitioners and individuals for evidence-based treatments and interventions.67,68 Tools that promote dissemination of evidence-based interventions such as the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices69 and the Inquiry-tested Intervention Programs70 should be expanded, and vehicles such as Inquiry to Reality71 that promote interactions betwixt researchers and practitioners should be more than broadly promoted.
Cumulative Noesis
Texts are starting to sally in the area of dissemination and implementation science,72 and contributions have been made by numerous fields, including biology, business, sociology, economics, and organizational, educational, and systems sciences. Both the pioneering journal in this field, Implementation Science, and newer publications are important repositories of accumulated knowledge. New investigations volition do well to refer to such sources, as well as original resources such as Christiansen et al.,73 McLeroy,74 Epping-Jordan et al.,75 Rogers,xviii Steckler and Linnan,76 and Stokols,77 rather than having to rediscover cardinal lessons learned in each new subarea.
CONCLUSIONS
The ultimate goal of dissemination and implementation science is to ensure that advances in health science become standards for care in all populations and all health intendance settings. Our perspective and knowledge base is admittedly heavily influenced past our NIH setting, and again we make no claim that this is a comprehensive review. Nosotros explicitly acknowledge the important work existence washed past sister agencies such every bit the Bureau for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resource and Services Administration, the VA, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; the crucial efforts of numerous individual foundations; and the valuable pioneering work existence done on dissemination and implementation in other countries that has not been discussed here.
In the coming years, we envision the continued development of a robust dissemination and implementation evidence base of operations that not only demonstrates success in integrating the cognition gained into clinical and customs do just feeds back knowledge to amend the rigor, relevance, efficiency, speed, and bear on of the biomedical research enterprise.
Human being Participant Protection
No protocol approving was needed for this study considering no human participants were involved.
References
1. Collins FS. Opportunities for research and NIH. Science. 2010;327(5961):36–37 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Lloyd Jones DM, Hong Y, Labarthe Det al.Defining and setting national goals for cardiovascular health promotion and disease reduction: the American Heart Association's strategic bear on goal through 2020 and across. Circulation. 2010;121(four):586–613 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
three. Egan BM, Zhao Y, Axon RN. U.s. trends in prevalence, sensation, treatment, and control of hypertension, 1988–2008. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2043–2050 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Glasgow RE. What types of show are most needed to accelerate behavioral medicine? Ann Behav Med. 2008;35(1):19–25 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Balderdash SS, Estabrooks P. The future of wellness behavior change research: what is needed to ameliorate translation of research into health promotion do? Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(1):3–12 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vi. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams Jet al.The quality of wellness care delivered to adults in the United States. Northward Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–2645 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vii. Abildso CG, Zizzi SJ, Reger-Nash B. Evaluating an insurance-sponsored weight direction program with the RE-AIM model, West Virginia, 2004–2008. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010;seven(3):A46. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Early on release of selected estimates based on data from the January–March 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Available at: http://world wide web.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/released201203.htm. Accessed April 24, 2012
x. Stamos TD, Shaltoni H, Girard SA, Parrillo JE, Calvin JE. Effectiveness of nautical chart prompts to improve doctor compliance with the National Cholesterol Education Plan guidelines. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88(12):1420–1423 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Gawande A. The Checklist Manifesto: How to Go Things Right. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books; 2009 [Google Scholar]
12. Wlodarczyk J, Sullivan D, Smith G. Comparison of benefits and risks of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin from a meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102(12):1654–1662 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xiii. Weng T, Yang Y-K, Lin S, Tai S. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the therapeutic equivalence of statins. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2010;35(2):139–151 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
fourteen. Lazar LD, Pletcher MJ, Coxson PG, Bibbins-Domingo K, Goldman L. Cost-effectiveness of statin therapy for main prevention in a depression-toll statin era. Circulation. 2011;124(2):146–153 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Woolf SH, Johnson RE, Fryer GE, Jr, Rust K, Satcher D. The health impact of resolving racial disparities: an analysis of US bloodshed data. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(12):2078–2081 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Rabin BA, Glasgow RE. Broadcasting of ehealth communication programs. : Noar SM, Harrington NG, eHealth Applications: Promising Strategies for Beliefs Modify. New York, NY: Routledge; 2012:221–245 [Google Scholar]
eighteen. Rogers EM. Improvidence of Innovations. 5th ed New York, NY: Free Press; 2003 [Google Scholar]
20. Ruhe MC, Weyer SM, Zronek Due south, Wilkinson A, Wilkinson PS, Stange KC. Facilitating practice alter: lessons from the Footstep-Up clinical trial. Prev Med. 2005;twoscore(vi):729–734 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Glisson C, Schoenwald SK, Hemmelgarn Aet al.Randomized trial of MST and ARC in a ii-level evidence-based treatment implementation strategy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010;78(4):537–550 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding show-based public health policy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(9):1576–1583 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Stokols D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for customs health promotion. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10(4):282–298 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Zwarenstein M, Treweek South. What kind of randomised trials do patients and clinicians need? Evid Based Med. 2009;14(4):101–103 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Greenish LW, Ottoson JM, Garcia C, Hiatt RA. Improvidence theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;xxx:151–174 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Glasgow RE, Emmons KM. How can we increment translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:413–433 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Damschroder Fifty, Aron D, Keith R, Kirsh S, Alexander J, Lowery J. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):fifty. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):637–644 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Mercer SM, DeVinney BJ, Fine LJ, Light-green LW. Study designs for effectiveness and translation inquiry: identifying trade-offs. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(two):139–154 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
thirty. Tinetti ME, Studenski SA. Comparative effectiveness research and patients with multiple chronic weather condition. Due north Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2478–2481 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Khoury MJ, Gwinn Chiliad, Ioannidis JP. The emergence of translational epidemiology: from scientific discovery to population health touch. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(five):517–524 [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Khoury MJ, Gwinn Chiliad, Yoon Pw, Dowling N, Moore CA, Bradley L. The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how tin can we advance the appropriate integration of man genome discoveries into health care and illness prevention? Genet Med. 2007;9(ten):665–674 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Collins FS. Reengineering translational scientific discipline: the time is right. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(90):90cm17 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Alexiou GA, Gouvias TC, Ioannidis JPA. Life cycle of translational research for medical interventions. Science. 2008;321(5894):1298–1299 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Teutsch SM, Fielding JE. Comparative effectiveness—looking under the lamppost. JAMA. 2011;305(21):2225–2226 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Kennedy A, Reeves D, Bower Pet al.The effectiveness and toll effectiveness of a national lay-led self care support programme for patients with long-term atmospheric condition: a businesslike randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(iii):254–261 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Lorig KR, Ritter P, Stewart ALet al.Chronic disease cocky-management programme: two-year health status and health care utilization outcomes. Med Intendance. 2001;39(11):1217–1223 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Gonzalez VM, Stewart A, Ritter PL, Lorig K. Translation and validation of arthritis outcome measures into Spanish. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38(10):1429–1446 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Lorig KR, Mazonson PD, Holman HR. Bear witness suggesting that wellness education for self-direction in patients with chronic arthritis has sustained wellness benefits while reducing wellness intendance costs. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36(4):439–446 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Rogers A, Kennedy A, Bower Pet al.The Britain expert patients plan: results and implications from a national evaluation. Med J Aust. 2008;189(suppl 10):S21–S24 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SEet al.Reduction in the incidence of type ii diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(half-dozen):393–403 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Katula JA, Vitolins MZ, Rosenberger ELet al.One-year results of a community-based translation of the Diabetes Prevention Programme: Good for you-Living Partnerships to Prevent Diabetes (Assistance PD) projection. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(7):1451–1457 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Ackermann RT, Finch EA, Brizendine Due east, Zhou H, Marrero DG. Translating the Diabetes Prevention Programme into the community: the DEPLOY pilot report. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(4):357–363 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Glasgow RE. HMC enquiry translation: speculations about making it existent and going to scale. Am J Health Behav. 2010;34(half dozen):833–840 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Scheirer MA, Dearing JW. An agenda for inquiry on the sustainability of public wellness programs. Am J Public Wellness. 2011;101(11):2059–2067 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Glasgow RE, Steiner J. Comparative effectiveness to advance translation: Recommendations for an emerging field of science. : Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, Broadcasting and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Exercise. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012:55–71 [Google Scholar]
50. Fuchs VR, Milstein A. The $640 billion question—why does cost-effective care diffuse and so slowly? N Engl J Med. 2011;364(21):1985–1987 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Vogt TM. Evaluating the overall impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to grade summary measures for determination making involving complex problems. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(5):688–694 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Glasgow RE, Nelson CC, Strycker LA, King DK. Using RE-AIM metrics to evaluate diabetes cocky-direction support interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(i):67–73 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare intervention research into practice: dramatic modify is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011;twoscore(half dozen):637–644 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Langley GL, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The Comeback Guide: A Practical Arroyo to Enhancing Organizational Performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2009 [Google Scholar]
55. Etheredge LM. A rapid-learning health system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26(2):w107–w118 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Found of Medicine The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007 [Google Scholar]
57. Milstein B, Homer J, Hirsch One thousand. Analyzing national health reform strategies with a dynamic simulation model. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(5):811–819 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Institute of Medicine Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Wellness System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Printing; 2001 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Glasgow RE, Green LW, Taylor MV, Stange KC. An prove integration triangle for aligning science with policy and practice. Am J Prev Med. In press [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Wennberg JE. Tracking Medicine: A Researcher's Quest to Empathize Health Intendance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2010 [Google Scholar]
63. Kaplan RM. Variation betwixt end-of-life health care costs in Los Angeles and San Diego: why are they and then different? J Palliat Med. 2011;14(ii):215–220 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Dark-green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: problems in external validity and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29(1):126–153 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Hall KL, Feng AX, Moser RP, Stokols D, Taylor BK. Moving the science of squad science forward: collaboration and creativity. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(suppl 2):S243–S249 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP. The science of team scientific discipline: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(suppl two):S77–S89 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Colditz GA, Emmons KM, Vishwanath Chiliad, Kerner JF. Translating science to practice: community and academic perspectives. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;fourteen(2):144–149 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Kerner J, Guirguis-Blake J, Hennessy Ket al.Translating research into improved outcomes in comprehensive cancer control. Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16(suppl 1):27–forty [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. Dissemination and Implementation Enquiry in Health: Translating Scientific discipline to Practise. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012 [Google Scholar]
73. Christiansen CM, Grossman JH, Hwang J. The Innovator's Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care. New York, NY: McGraw-Colina; 2009 [Google Scholar]
74. McLeroy Thou. Thinking of systems. Am J Public Wellness. 2006;96(3):402 [Google Scholar]
75. Epping-Hashemite kingdom of jordan JE, Pruitt SD, Bengoa R, Wagner EH. Improving the quality of health treat chronic conditions. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;xiii(4):299–305 [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Steckler AB, Linnan L. Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002 [Google Scholar]
77. Stokols D. Establishing and maintaining health environments: toward a social environmental of health promotion. Am Psychol. 1992;47(1):half-dozen–22 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3478005/
0 Response to "The Blank Has Been a Art of the National Efforts to Disseminate Evidence Based Programs"
Post a Comment