Variation in research designs used to test the effectiveness of dissemination and implementation strategies: A review
JournalFrontiers in Public Health
PublisherFrontiers Media S. A
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractBackground: The need for optimal study designs in dissemination and implementation (D & I) research is increasingly recognized. Despite the wide range of study designs available for D & I research, we lack understanding of the types of designs and methodologies that are routinely used in the field. This review assesses the designs and methodologies in recently proposed D & I studies and provides resources to guide design decisions. Methods: We reviewed 404 study protocols published in the journal Implementation Science from 2/2006 to 9/2017. Eligible studies tested the efficacy or effectiveness of D & I strategies (i.e., not effectiveness of the underlying clinical or public health intervention); had a comparison by group and/or time; and used ≥1 quantitative measure. Several design elements were extracted: design category (e.g., randomized); design type [e.g., cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT)]; data type (e.g., quantitative); D & I theoretical framework; levels of treatment assignment, intervention, and measurement; and country in which the research was conducted. Each protocol was double-coded, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Results: Of the 404 protocols reviewed, 212 (52%) studies tested one or more implementation strategy across 208 manuscripts, therefore meeting inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 77% utilized randomized designs, primarily cluster RCTs. The use of alternative designs (e.g., stepped wedge) increased over time. Fewer studies were quasi-experimental (17%) or observational (6%). Many study design categories (e.g., controlled pre-post, matched pair cluster design) were represented by only one or two studies. Most articles proposed quantitative and qualitative methods (61%), with the remaining 39% proposing only quantitative. Half of protocols (52%) reported using a theoretical framework to guide the study. The four most frequently reported frameworks were Consolidated Framework for Implementing Research and RE-AIM (n = 16 each), followed by Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Theoretical Domains Framework (n = 12 each). Conclusion: While several novel designs for D & I research have been proposed (e.g., stepped wedge, adaptive designs), the majority of the studies in our sample employed RCT designs. Alternative study designs are increasing in use but may be underutilized for a variety of reasons, including preference of funders or lack of awareness of these designs. Promisingly, the prevalent use of quantitative and qualitative methods together reflects methodological innovation in newer D & I research. Copyright 2018 Mazzucca, Tabak, Pilar, Ramsey, Baumann, Kryzer, Lewis, Padek, Powell and Brownson.
SponsorsSupport for this project came from National Cancer Institute (5R25CA171994-02) and the National Institute of Mental Health (5R25MH080916). Additional support came from the National Institute of Mental Health (5P30 MH068579, 5R25MH080916); the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (5R01CA160327); the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK Grant Number 1P30DK092950); the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health (K12DA041449); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health (3U01HL13399402S1); the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health (1R01HG00935101A1); Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant UL1 TR000448 and KL2 TR000450 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; and grant funding from the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital.
Identifier to cite or link to this itemhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85045252947&doi=10.3389%2ffpubh.2018.00032&partnerID=40&md5=6c7ec8a5b476966b577058283446c9f8; http://hdl.handle.net/10713/9484
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Building a pipeline of community-engaged researchers: How interdisciplinary translational research training programs can collaborate with their Community Research Advisory CouncilsLaFave, Sarah E; Wallace, Duane J; Grover, Raneitra; Clark, Roger; Marks, Stacey; Lacanienta, Cyd; Evans, Crystal; Kalil, Graziela Z; Ouyang, Pamela; Himmelfarb, Cheryl R; et al. (Cambridge University Press, 2021-07-14)Community research advisory councils (C-RAC) bring together community members with interest in research to support design, evaluation, and dissemination of research in the communities they represent. There are few ways for early career researchers, such as TL1 trainees, to develop skills in community-engaged research, and there are limited opportunities for C-RAC members to influence early career researchers. In our novel training collaboration, TL1 trainees presented their research projects to C-RAC members who provided feedback. We present on initial evidence of student learning and summarize lessons learned that TL1 programs and C-RACs can incorporate into future collaborations.
RE-CODE DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy): A Consensus Process to Improve Research Efficiency in DCM, Through Establishment of a Standardized Dataset for Clinical Research and the Definition of the ResDavies, B.M.; Khan, D.Z.; Mowforth, O.D. (SAGE Publications Ltd, 2019)Study Design: Mixed-method consensus process. Objectives: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition that arises when mechanical stress damages the spinal cord as a result of degenerative changes in the surrounding spinal structures. RECODE-DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy) aims to improve efficient use of health care resources within the field of DCM by using a multi-stakeholder partnership to define the DCM research priorities, to develop a minimum dataset for DCM clinical studies, and confirm a definition of DCM. Methods: This requires a multi-stakeholder partnership and multiple parallel consensus development processes. It will be conducted via 4 phases, adhering to the guidance set out by the COMET (Core Outcomes in Effectiveness Trials) and JLA (James Lind Alliance) initiatives. Phase 1 will consist of preliminary work to inform online Delphi processes (Phase 2) and a consensus meeting (Phase 3). Following the findings of the consensus meeting, a synthesis of relevant measurement instruments will be compiled and assessed as per the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) criteria, to allow recommendations to be made on how to measure agreed data points. Phase 4 will monitor and promote the use of eventual recommendations. Conclusions: RECODE-DCM sets out to establish for the first time an index term, minimum dataset, and research priorities together. Our aim is to reduce waste of health care resources in the future by using patient priorities to inform the scope of future DCM research activities. The consistent use of a standard dataset in DCM clinical studies, audit, and clinical surveillance will facilitate pooled analysis of future data and, ultimately, a deeper understanding of DCM. Copyright The Author(s) 2019.
Factors influencing retention of child welfare staff: a systematic review of research: a report from the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research conducted in collaboration with University of Maryland School of Social Work Center for Families & Institute for Human Services PolicyZlotnik, Joan Levy; DePanfilis, Diane; Daining, Clara; McDermott Lane, Melissa; Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR); Univerisity of Maryland, Baltimore. School of Social Work. Center for Families & Institute for Human Services Policy (2005-06)A systematic review of research and outcomes studies related to recruitment and retention in child welfare. Although there have been numerous literature reviews that report that there are organizational and personal factors that affect recruitment and retention, there has been no systematic review of research studies to more fully examine “what works” in regard to recruitment and retention in child welfare and to illuminate the specific methodology and definitions used to frame those studies. It is hoped that by synthesizing the results across studies, practitioners, researchers, educators, policy makers, and administrators in the child welfare field may use lessons learned to take steps to increase the retention of a competent child welfare workforce. (from Executive Summary)