This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research
Demetria McNeal
University of Colorado Denver - Anschutz Medical Campus
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7415-8631
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Little is known about practices used to disseminate findings to non- research audiences. This study describes the perspectives, experience and activities of dissemination & implementation (D&I) researchers around disseminating their research findings.
Methods
The study explored D&I researchers’ experiences and recommendations for assessment of dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Existing list serves were used to recruit scientist. Respondents were asked three open ended questions on an Internet survey regarding 1) how their dissemination activities are evaluated, 2) how they would recommend changing the system to recognize dissemination activities and 3) how they could improve their own dissemination of their work.
Results
Surveys were completed by 159 scientists reporting some training, funding, and/or publication history in D&I. Three themes emerged across each of the three open ended questions. Question 1 on evaluation generated the themes of: 1a) promotional review; 1b) funding requirements; and 1c) absence of evaluation of dissemination activities. Question 2 on recommended changes generated the themes of: 2a) dissemination as a distinct component of research; 2b) requirement of dissemination plan; and 2c) dissemination metrics. Question 3 on personal changes to improve dissemination generated the themes of: 3a) allocation of resources for dissemination activities; 3b) utilization of non-traditional (or alternative) dissemination mediums; and 3c) identify and address issues of priority for stakeholders.
Conclusions
The findings revealed the different types of issues D&I researchers encounter when disseminating findings to non-academic audiences and their suggestions to improve the process. Future research should consider key requirements which determine academic promotion and grant funding as an opportunity to expand dissemination efforts.
Keywords
dissemination, research practices, stakeholder engagement, qualitative survey
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
View the published article at Journal of Clinical and Translational Science.
Version 1
Posted 20 Apr, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Translational Medicine
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research
Demetria McNeal
University of Colorado Denver - Anschutz Medical Campus
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7415-8631
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
View the published article at Journal of Clinical and Translational Science.
Version 1
Posted 20 Apr, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Translational Medicine
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Journal of Clinical and Translational Science.
Background
Little is known about practices used to disseminate findings to non- research audiences. This study describes the perspectives, experience and activities of dissemination & implementation (D&I) researchers around disseminating their research findings.
Methods
The study explored D&I researchers’ experiences and recommendations for assessment of dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Existing list serves were used to recruit scientist. Respondents were asked three open ended questions on an Internet survey regarding 1) how their dissemination activities are evaluated, 2) how they would recommend changing the system to recognize dissemination activities and 3) how they could improve their own dissemination of their work.
Results
Surveys were completed by 159 scientists reporting some training, funding, and/or publication history in D&I. Three themes emerged across each of the three open ended questions. Question 1 on evaluation generated the themes of: 1a) promotional review; 1b) funding requirements; and 1c) absence of evaluation of dissemination activities. Question 2 on recommended changes generated the themes of: 2a) dissemination as a distinct component of research; 2b) requirement of dissemination plan; and 2c) dissemination metrics. Question 3 on personal changes to improve dissemination generated the themes of: 3a) allocation of resources for dissemination activities; 3b) utilization of non-traditional (or alternative) dissemination mediums; and 3c) identify and address issues of priority for stakeholders.
Conclusions
The findings revealed the different types of issues D&I researchers encounter when disseminating findings to non-academic audiences and their suggestions to improve the process. Future research should consider key requirements which determine academic promotion and grant funding as an opportunity to expand dissemination efforts.
Loading...